Discussion Title: All Humans Should Be Vegan.

1. All humans should be vegan.
1.1. Con: Dietary freedom is an inalienable human right.
1.1.1. Pro: Many people gain substantial happiness from their non-vegan diet.
1.1.1.1. Pro: The demand for meat is [increasing](https://ourworldindata.org/meat-and-seafood-production-consumption). This shows its popularity.
1.1.1.1.1. Con: This could be tied to the [subsidization](https://meatonomics.com/2013/08/22/meatonomics-index/) of meat products, resulting in them being cheaper than plant based food, not necessarily to their popularity.
1.1.1.1.2. Con: The demand of meat increases because 3rd world countries follow the most developed ones which don't necessarily show the right example. Doing so they mimic the practices, which we can clearly see are usually [reversing](https://ensia.com/articles/these-maps-show-changes-in-global-meat-consumption-by-2024-heres-why-that-matters/) in the 1st world countries. Tendencies reverse because obvious reasons have been claimed and confirmed with scientific data and moral basis that explain and inform people on verifiable facts that will make them decide and hopefully make the right choice.
1.1.1.1.3. Con: This increase is made by economic and political interests coming together and does not correlate with its popularity.
1.1.1.2. Pro: There would be severely less dishes that have meat as a key ingredient and thus would lead to a loss of dishes that have evolved over thousands of years, even those that are part of the culture of countries.
1.1.1.2.1. Con: Human cuisine has always evolved, especially in recent years with the wider availability of different foods. The void that losing some traditional dishes creates can easily be filled.
1.1.1.3. Con: Something feeling good to do does not mean that it is morally justified.
1.1.1.3.1. Pro: The argument that something tastes good has no moral value, it in no ways can be valid. Some may say anything tastes good, but if it has no health benefits so one limits his consumption of the produce, and if there is no valid point to continue to use such product then the person totally avoids it. Most of all because it harms the products environment in many ways.
1.1.1.3.2. Pro: Human meat can taste good, violence can feel good. Because it comes at the expense of another conscious being, it's not a good enough reason to do it.
1.1.1.3.3. Pro: That does not justify causing animal suffering when it can be avoided.
1.1.1.3.3.1. Pro: Compassion is more morally and ethically important than taste.
1.1.1.3.3.2. Con: Suffering \(like being unhappy\) should not transition onto humans just because we do not want to create suffering in others \(like animals\). This just makes net suffering as equal as before, not different.
1.1.1.3.3.2.1. Pro: Humans should think of themselves first before helping others. Without humans being well-off in a transition, then it is not worthwhile. This extends to veganism.
1.1.1.3.3.2.2. Con: Veganism does not cause humans significant suffering.
1.1.1.3.3.2.3. Con: While veganism might cause short term unhappiness in some people during the transition period, it has long-term benefits for the whole planet. Sacrificing short-lived pleasures for a greater goal is the basis of many of our human endeavours \(e.g. saving for retirement\).
1.1.1.3.4. Pro: This argument assumes a position that people should do whatever pleases them regardless of consequences.
1.1.1.4. Con: Happiness from good food is not limited to meals containing animal products. Most of the time, it's about interesting textures, [umami](https://www.foodrepublic.com/2011/07/15/what-is-umami-and-does-it-exist/) and the social aspect of eating together. By focusing on those essential aspects of eating out / eating together, people can gain comparable happiness on a vegan diet.
1.1.1.5. Con: Many people gain substantial happiness from their vegan diets too. This isn't a reason not to go vegan.
1.1.1.5.1. Con: From an hedonistic point of view, attaining pleasure is the only thing worth doing.
1.1.1.5.2. Pro: As the technology improves, synthetic meat substitutes will inevitably become more economical, more nutritious, and better tasting than natural meat products.
1.1.1.5.2.1. Pro: Many vegan products already taste good, it's just that many people don't know it.
1.1.1.5.2.1.1. Con: Just because broccoli tastes good doesn't mean we can't have ice cream.
1.1.1.5.2.2. Con: While synthetic meat substitutes may be feasible, these means won't be economical for a long time. To get truly nutritionally equivalent meat at a similar price could take decades, as this start-up [discusses](https://www.wsj.com/articles/startup-to-serve-up-chicken-strips-cultivated-from-cells-in-lab-1489570202) by describing their meat substitute and their pricing projections for the future.
1.1.1.5.2.3. Con: The specific diet and lifestyle of an animal has a [dramatic effect](https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/will-chicken-thats-fed-lemons-taste-lemons) on its flavour, this would not be easy to replicate in a laboratory.
1.1.1.5.2.4. Con: Laboratory produced food means that some laboratories will have food monopolies. Thus poor countries will have to pay extortionate amounts to buy food that they won't be able to produce by themselves, because their production of it is not vegan.
1.1.1.5.2.4.1. Pro: If lab food is produced at a rate that exceeds consumption, post-scarcity would be achieved. The technology to produce meat in this way should be public knowledge for the world to use. It should be a public service, first provided by the government, and private entities can sell their own product to attempt to compete with the government's free product. If they fail, capitalism will have taken one more step toward its demise.
1.1.1.5.2.5. Con: We may, one day, create synthetic meat that has more flavour, more nutrients and requires 0 animal deaths. But we are not there yet \(all experimental artificial meats are less nutrient and have different taste\), so we are still justified to seek the best nutrition possible, given how nutrition is important in to biology.
1.1.1.5.2.6. Con: The same can happen for lab-grown plants, if not cheaper yet. So animals aren't needed for production savings and productivity and would be worse than just doing this with vegan food.
1.1.1.5.3. Pro: If so many people are happy with eating meat, then so many people \(namely [millennials](https://munchies.vice.com/en_uk/article/9a8gve/this-is-why-millennials-are-all-turning-vegan)\) would not be trending away from it. Apparently people are not happy with the omnivore diet as they become more aware of the downsides of it, and are taking action to avoid it for better alternatives \(like veganism\).
1.1.1.5.4. Pro: People can also gain substantial happiness from aligning their morals \(not wanting to hurt animals\) with their actions - by not eating animals. A clear\(er\) conscience can be a great source of happiness.
1.1.1.6. Pro: If all humans were vegan, all restaurants would be vegan, which would make society worse off overall.
1.1.1.6.1. Con: If everybody were vegan, all restaurant owners and clients would be vegan: nobody would ever complain about all restaurants being vegan, so the claim that it would make society worse off overall is false.
1.1.1.6.2. Pro: Most people dislike vegan food.
1.1.1.6.2.1. Con: Many people would like vegan food if they tried and were used to it.
1.1.1.6.2.2. Con: People might not like the idea of eating only vegan, but most non-vegan foods have vegan ingredients. For instance, the meat most people eat tastes so good because it's been seasoned with vegan spices.
1.1.1.7. Con: The happiness is just a mask for the addiction to animal products.
1.1.1.7.1. Pro: Meat \(and other animal products\) has drug-like [chemicals](https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-14423/6-foods-that-behave-like-addictive-drugs-in-your-body.html) that cause people to be addicted and die \([twice that of smoking](https://www.meatjunkie.com/essays/addiction.php)!\). Banning animal products will release people from addictions that are not in their best interest.
1.1.1.7.1.1. Pro: That is likely because people are addicted \(due to [hypoxanthine](https://nutrientrich.com/diet-trapped/is-meat-addictive.html)\) or habitually used to eating meat. If they change their diet, their tastebuds will change with it \([scientifically proven](https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2013/0757/fruit-flies-food-experience-can-alter-taste-preferences)\) and then they won't feel the need to 'eat' meat anymore.
1.1.1.7.1.2. Pro: Meat creates [toxic metabolites](https://nutrientrich.com/diet-trapped/is-meat-addictive.html) in the body that create a 'hangover' feeling that may cause people to eat more meat, thinking they need it. If they stop eating meat, these toxic metabolites leave the body and don't return.
1.1.1.8. Pro: Meat has powerful [stimulating effects](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/what-makes-a-hamburger-and-other-cooked-meat-so-enticing-to-humans/2013/08/12/8f8e1d72-ff73-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html?utm_term=.570f6f6d1816) on human sensory pleasure.
1.1.1.8.1. Con: It's the spices, i.e. plants, and thermic processing that make meat taste good. Raw meat is inedible for most.
1.1.1.8.2. Con: Taste is subjective.
1.1.1.8.2.1. Pro: Many people dislike the taste of meat, eggs, milk or cheese. It's subjective.
1.1.1.8.2.2. Pro: People's taste buds change to their diet \([1](https://plantproof.com/taste-buds-will-they-change/), [2](https://nutritionfacts.org/2014/06/24/want-to-be-healthier-change-your-taste-buds/)\), so one day their body \(i.e. their tongue and brain\) will stop asking for meat.
1.1.1.8.2.3. Con: Taste is not the only thing driving people's desire for specific foods. People can get [cravings](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mood-microbe/201905/the-shocking-source-your-cravings) for meat due to their gut bacteria.
1.1.1.8.3. Con: Many children will remember being coaxed or forced to eat certain things even if they didn't like them, including some meats and meat products, causing them to dislike the taste.
1.1.1.8.4. Con: Making everyone vegan will allow the many people who do not like the taste of meat to enjoy the great taste of vegan foods.
1.1.1.8.4.1. Con: We should not transition to vegan foods if they do not taste better than meat \(as some vegan foods taste worse than meat\).
1.1.1.8.4.1.1. Con: The problems associated with meat eating \(e.g. animal mistreatment and environmental impact\) massively outweighs the importance of the taste of our food.
1.1.1.8.4.1.2. Con: This a false equivalency. You do not have to replace steak by a perfect vegan copy, you can find meals that you like just as much and that happen to be vegan.
1.1.2. Con: This sentiment problematically suggests that we can all act as we wish to, regardless of the harm caused to others. If this were the case, any immoral action could be justifiable on grounds of personal freedom.
1.1.2.1. Con: This is a [strawman fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). It exaggerates the original argument beyond the scope of veganism, thus making it easier to attack.
1.1.2.2. Con: Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequence. In this particular context, harm can be taken into consideration by the individual exercising the right to choose.
1.1.3. Con: It can both be the case that someone ought to do something and that they should remain free not to do it if they wish. Thus, it may be the case that one ought to be vegan and yet should remain free not to be vegan if they so choose.
1.1.3.1. Pro: One ought to donate to charity, yet one should remain free not to donate to charity if one so chooses.
1.1.3.2. Pro: One ought to be faithful to one's spouse, yet one should be free to cheat on them if one so chooses.
1.1.3.3. Pro: One ought to be virtuous, yet one should be free not to be virtuous if one so chooses.
1.1.4. Con: Even if you are free to act on your conviction, desires, and don't have any compassion or see a virtue to veganism, there are those that will defend the animal, its rights, and object to or hinder you from harming it. Your right does not principally supercede another's.
1.1.5. Con: Choices are and will always be limited.
1.1.5.1. Con: Limiting choices available to others without a clear moral reason is immoral since it undermines their free will. Stating that "Oh well, choices are limited" is not a good reason for example to discourage abortions.
1.1.5.2. Con: It's not the choices, but the practicality of them that's limited. People can be free in opening their mind to any food choice they desire, but not every choice can someone follow through with actually eating it.
1.1.5.2.1. Pro: We should limit actions of humans which have negative effects on other humans. For example, the environmental impacts of animal agriculture.
1.1.5.2.2. Pro: It is acceptable to limit the freedom when the freedom infringes on the rights of others. By the same notion, you would not be allowed to eat another person, as that limits their right to exist.
1.1.5.2.2.1. Pro: Individual freedom should be limited by the suffering of other sentient beings.
1.1.5.2.2.1.1. Pro: People do not need animal products either and it's improper to speak about individual freedom when there are sentient victims.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2. Con: There is [research](https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm) to suggest that plants too can feel pain.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.1. Pro: Plants can [react](http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/15/do-plants-respond-to-pain-scientists-conduct-an-experiment-to-find-out/) to pain.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2. Con: Whether or not plants feel pain, veganism results in fewer plant deaths as fewer plant calories are used as animal feed.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.1. Pro: Since the majority of farmed vegetation goes into [producing meat](https://www.truthordrought.com/soybean-myths), even if consuming plants is removing life, less plants would be consumed were people to gain nutrition from eating them alone rather than animal products.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.1.1. Pro: [Beef production](https://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/sustainable-diets-what-you-need-know-12-charts) requires 20 times more land and emits 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of edible protein than common plant-based protein sources such as beans, peas and lentils.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: [Beef](https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/16_Shifting-Diets-Blog-Graphics_05v3.png) is one of the most inefficient sources of calories and protein.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.1.2. Pro: [Chicken and pork](https://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/sustainable-diets-what-you-need-know-12-charts) require three times more land and emit three times more greenhouse gas emissions than beans per unit of edible protein.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.1.3. Pro: Producing 1 kg of grain-fed beef requires [7 kg of grain](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/03/it-does-not-take-7-kg-of-grain-to-make-1-kg-of-beef-be-very-careful-with-your-statistics/#2430e94b5f0d).
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.1.3.1. Con: These figures are misrepresentative as they are only based on one specific method of [cattle rearing in America](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/03/it-does-not-take-7-kg-of-grain-to-make-1-kg-of-beef-be-very-careful-with-your-statistics/#173258605f0d).
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.3. Con: Plants neither feel pain, nor any emotions, that is not how they have been naturally selected to evolve.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.3.1. Pro: They have neither [nervous system nor pain receptors](https://www.vice.com/sv/article/xd74nd/we-asked-a-botanist-how-sure-science-is-that-plants-cant-feel-pain-302). Plus, although plants have neurotransmitters \(even the same as ones found in [humans](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/acetylcholine)\), they do not use it for thinking but instead as [protection](https://phys.org/news/2014-02-human-brain-humans-insects.html) \(by changing their predators' brain chemistry to prevent their attacks\).
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.3.1.1. Con: While plants seem not to perform central pain processing, they are still [responsive to nociception](https://www.britannica.com/story/do-plants-feel-pain)(Arabidopsis \(a mustard plant commonly used in scientific studies\) sends out electrical signals from leaf to leaf when it is being eaten by caterpillars or aphids, signals to ramp up its chemical defenses against herbivory.) in ways that reflect aversion.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.3.1.2. Pro: "Perhaps the cleverest instance of plant signalling involves two insect species, the first in the role of pest and the second as its exterminator. Several species, including corn and lima beans, emit a chemical distress call when attacked by caterpillars. Parasitic wasps some distance away lock in on that scent, follow it to the afflicted plant, and proceed to slowly destroy the caterpillars. Scientists call these insects “plant bodyguards.”" \[ [link](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant) \]
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.3.2. Pro: Fruits, for example, are deliberately tasty, so that other organisms consume them and thereby involuntarily distribute the fruits' seeds, as they are not digested, or left on the floor.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.4. Pro: Plants release gases that are the [equivalent of crying out in pain](https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm). Using a laser-powered microphone, researchers have picked up sound waves produced by plants releasing gases when cut or injured.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.4.1. Con: Reacting to trauma is not the same as feeling pain. Pain requires some subject to experience the pain and plants plausibly lack this subjectiveness.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.5. Pro: To not eat meat or any other animal product for the reason of an evolutionary adaptation \(pain\) while still eating plants whom have also shown the "will" to survive through many adaptations \(poison,...\), because of the ease to empathise with one but not with the other is merely a form of tribalism. Not a virtue.
1.1.5.2.2.1.2.5.1. Con: There are good reasons to think that plants are different in morally relevant ways, as they plausibly lack subjectivity.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3. Con: Animals are not moral actors and as such their abuse, exploitation and life are not subject to a question of morals.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.1. Con: Animals need not be moral actors, but only moral subjects. That is, morals need not apply to what an animal does, but only to what others do to the animals. As animals are moral subjects, what humans do to animals is morally relevant and important.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.1.1. Pro: Babies are not moral actors, but they are moral subjects. It is immoral to harm babies. However, as babies do not and cannot know any better, if a baby were to cause harm, the baby would not be acting immorally. Animals are similar to babies in this respect.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.1.2. Pro: People who are asleep or in temporary comas are not moral actors, as they cannot act. Yet it is immoral to do harm to a person who is asleep or in a temporary coma as they are still moral subjects. The same applies to animals.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.2. Pro: To be a moral actor one must be [capable of making moral decisions](https://fee.org/articles/do-animals-have-rights/). Animals do not have this ability.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.2.1. Pro: Morality is an evolutionary [by-product of human intellect](https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/9015). Most animals do not have comparative intellect.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.3. Pro: Plants are identical to animals in their inability to make moral decisions, yet humans must eat to survive.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.3.1. Con: The inability to make moral decisions does not render plants and animals morally equivalent.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.4. Con: Entities do not need to be moral actors to be included in the moral calculus of other entities. For example [utilitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) is concerned with suffering, irrespective of the moral ability of those that suffer.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.4.1. Con: This form of utilitarianism equates animal suffering with human suffering.  This will lead to a society that minimizes the total aggregate suffering of animals and people.  Seeing as this argument is about what people should do, this is not germane.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.4.2. Con: Utilitarianism is not the only school of philosophical thought.  For example here is a [list.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies)
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.4.3. Con: Utilitarianism does not concern itself with motives only outcomes and as such the "[moral luck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck)" problem is one that it can't escape.
1.1.5.2.2.1.3.4.4. Con: According to a [scientific study](https://www.treehugger.com/cars/trillions-of-insects-killed-by-cars-every-year-says-study.html), 2 bugs are killed \(by striking the license plate alone\) for every 6.2 miles  driven.  This would equate to 32.5 trillion dead insects in the US alone for a given year.  A utilitarian that believed this argument would likewise argue against cars and other forms of massive insect slaughter.
1.1.5.2.2.2. Pro: Humans shouldn't have the right to choose the life and death of others if they do not depend on doing so for survival.
1.1.5.2.2.2.1. Con: Animals do not share human rights.
1.1.5.2.2.2.1.1. Pro: Rights are artificial constructs created to order our behavior. Nonhumans may not have "human rights," but that should not stop them from having "animal rights." Neither is less artificial than the other, but that does not mean they would not both serve important moral purposes.
1.1.5.2.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: Giving animals just animal rights allows human rights to not be degraded to those of animals or vice versa \(where human rights apply to animals, but cause harm to them instead of protection\).
1.1.5.2.2.2.1.1.2. Con: Giving animals just animal rights may make animals more susceptible to laws to reduce their rights, while humans are not affected. Animals need extra protection right now, if giving animals human rights serve them better, then extending those rights to them has merit.
1.1.5.2.2.2.1.2. Con: This does not mean they shouldn't have the right to be needlessly exploited.
1.1.5.2.2.2.1.3. Con: In the past humans have failed to grant other groups of humans rights, we may be as wrong now about not granting rights to animals as we were then.
1.1.5.2.2.2.2. Con: Plants are alive too.
1.1.5.2.2.2.3. Con: Saying we don't need to do something is not a compelling reason why we should not do it.  There are many unnecessary things that people do every day, and most likely should, unless one would like humankind to return to subsistence living.
1.1.5.2.2.2.3.1. Con: Eating meat is not simply unnecessary but also harmful, causing pain to animals and damaging the environment. While it is perfectly reasonable to accept and even encourage unnecessary practices that are neutral or beneficial, practices that are both unnecessary and harmful should be reevaluated.
1.1.5.2.2.2.4. Con: Currently not all people abide by the rule a diet must be vegan.  This claim is self defeating.
1.1.5.2.2.3. Con: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.2.1.
1.1.5.2.2.4. Pro: Violence and non-violence / invasiveness and non-invasiveness are never morally equivalent choices, no matter the topic.
1.1.5.2.2.5. Pro: Living beings are not comparable to simple "food items" as this is not a matter of taste, but a choice of life or death.
1.1.5.2.3. Pro: Humans should be able to choose to eat anything they like, like dogs, cats, apes, other humans etc, but can't because they aren't allowed to. In meat eating societies, they have bans on these, because these actions are offensive to others or problematic.
1.1.5.2.3.1. Con: There is nothing inherently wrong with eating dogs, cats, or apes. Some cultures already do, and it presents no genuine problems for them.
1.1.5.2.3.2. Con: If people can eat meat from livestock, then it is no different than consuming these other animals. People just have moral/ethical instead logical conflicts with eating meat from these sources.
1.1.5.2.3.3. Con: There are no problems inherent with eating any of those animals, but they cannot be lumped together with cannibalism, which is a completely different thing. Humans should, in fact, be able to choose to eat anything they like, short of committing a crime.
1.1.5.2.3.4. Pro: [Eating pets](https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/man-bites-dog-its-legal-to-eat-dogs-and-cats-in-44-states-101714.html), [endangered species](https://www.alternet.org/story/145668/endangered_species_on_the_grill%3A_the_black_market_in_illegal_meat_flourishes_in_the_us) like apes, and [cannibalism](https://www.businessinsider.com/most-ridiculous-law-in-every-state-2014-2) are banned in some US states and due to their dangers.
1.1.5.2.3.4.1. Pro: People eating endangered animals, such as apes, could be devastating to the environment if they go extinct.
1.1.5.3. Pro: Humans have a [moral obligation/duty](https://www.abolitionistapproach.com/after-30-years-morrissey-goes-vegan-but-calls-veganism-purist/) to be responsible for what we eat. So even though we can choose any food we want to eat, we need to also act within our principles to do the right thing within our choices.
1.1.5.3.1. Pro: Humans have a responsibility for managing the food chain/web through what we eat, due to our privileged position at the top of all of them worldwide.
1.1.5.3.1.1. Pro: We are higher than carnivores and thus need to make a more elevated decision in our role than them. Instead of just [managing one ecosystem to keep it healthy](https://www.earth.com/news/carnivores-healthy-ecosystem/), we would need to achieve that for the entire world's environment altogether. Veganism is one option to help us carry this task out.
1.1.5.4. Pro: Our circumstances dictate what foods we eat, even if we are free to choose anything we want.
1.1.5.4.1. Pro: Every culture limits the freedom of choice regarding meat consumption, with some animals being considered improper for consumption.
1.1.5.4.1.1. Con: Unless you count cannibalism, Western culture doesn't really care what you eat.
1.1.5.4.1.1.1. Con: Eating dogs or cats would cause a massive outcry in most Western countries.
1.1.5.4.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.2.3.
1.1.5.4.1.3. Pro: With all humans being vegan, we would create worldwide limits on the freedom of choice for meat consumption, because all animals would be considered improper.
1.1.5.4.1.4. Con: The amount of people who support/oppose certain actions does not speak for or against the action.
1.1.5.4.1.5. Con: Cultural limitations on human freedoms are sometimes wrong.
1.1.5.4.2. Pro: Freedom of choice is framed in particular circumstances, such as a capitalist society in which you can choose among what you can pay, or a deprivided society with little options. Under some particular circumstances and through a rationalization process, one may conclude that [it may be beneficial to Humanity to become Vegan.](https://www.sciencealert.com/what-if-the-whole-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian)
1.1.5.4.2.1. Pro: People aren't completely free to choose what to eat since [advertising](https://www.mnn.com/money/sustainable-business-practices/stories/the-marketing-of-meat-why-beef-and-pork-producers-are) is prominent in our culture, [affecting the decision making process](https://lifehacker.com/5824328/how-advertising-manipulates-your-choices-and-spending-habits-and-what-to-do-about-it).
1.1.5.4.2.1.1. Pro: Human bodies generally do not need any animal products to survive. Marketers just generated that myth just to make money regardless of their product's' health impact \(like Got Milk commercials [saying that calcium is needed from milk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoZ0wqsdwvY) when the food with the most calcium is [dried basil](https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171317/nutrients)\).
1.1.5.4.3. Pro: Humans will not be able to have a choice when meat runs out anyway \(such as when every fish gets caught in the ocean, when a species goes extinct, or [resource scarcity forces it](https://www.livescience.com/22814-meat-eating-vegetarianism.html)\).
1.1.5.4.3.1. Pro: In a vegan world, species would not be as endangered any more; some species would not go extinct.
1.1.5.4.3.1.1. Con: If hunter-gatherer societies turned vegan, it could destabilise the [food chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain) because the apex predator would no longer exist, leading to overpopulation further down in the food chain.
1.1.5.4.3.1.1.1. Con: This is highly unlikely because [99% of the animals that we eat are bred in factory farms specifically for that purpose](https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates). Ceasing to eat them will mean ceasing to breed them.
1.1.5.4.3.1.2. Con: Domestic animals were bred by humans throughout history. They are not capable of living in the wilderness now and will go extinct if they had to.
1.1.5.4.3.1.3. Pro: "[Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts)."
1.1.5.4.3.1.4. Con: [Cowspiracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy) is not a credible source.
1.1.5.4.3.1.4.1. Con: Cowspiracy is not a source on its own, it is an aggregator. Its sources can be found at: [cowspiracy.com](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/)
1.1.5.4.3.1.4.2. Pro: Cowspiracy has been [criticised](https://newint.org/blog/2016/02/10/cowspiracy-stampeding-in-the-wrong-direction) by vegans and non-vegans alike for picking and choosing sources purely to serve its narrative.
1.1.5.4.3.1.5. Pro: Because people eat meat, they threaten endangered species, even when they're protected legally.
1.1.5.4.3.1.5.1. Pro: One example is when [Bear Grylls ate a protected frog in Bulgaria](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/22/uk/bear-grylls-bulgaria-fine-intl-scli-gbr/index.html). He didn't know it was protected, but since he ate meat, disregarded the laws and put the species of frogs at risk \(due to its limited population size\).
1.1.5.4.3.1.6. Con: Animals are not threatened if they are provided legal protections from mass exploitation or extinction.
1.1.5.4.3.1.6.1. Con: Individual animal lives are endangered in any slaughterhouse, by definition, however restrictive and well applied the laws may be. The focus of veganism is not only the preservation of species as a whole, but the reduction of suffering inflicted upon animals as sentient individuals.
1.1.5.4.3.1.6.2. Con: Just because there are legal protections, does not mean they are followed or enforced in practice.
1.1.5.4.3.1.7. Pro: Over [100,000 species](http://www.worldanimalfoundation.org/articles/article/8949042/186425.htm) per year go extinct in large part due to animal agriculture.
1.1.5.4.3.1.8. Con: In order to grow crops we already mass extinct certain lifeforms. Middle Europe for instance is almost insect free leading to a mass starvation of birds and other animals living of those insects. Germany has lost [75%](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insektensterben) of its insect biomass due to modern agriculture.
1.1.5.4.3.1.9. Pro: Fish and other ocean wildlife populations are [greatly reduced](https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp434-e.htm#THE%20STATE%20OF%20THE%20WORLD'S%20FISHERIES\(txt\)) compared to a century ago. A vegan society would allow those populations to rebuild and restore balance in the ocean.
1.1.5.4.3.2. Con: Animals reproduce, some very quickly. Sustainable farming practices realistically preclude the possibility of a livestock species going extinct, [including fish](https://grist.org/food/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-fish-farming-but-were-afraid-to-ask/).
1.1.5.4.3.2.1. Con: Industrial farming is driving the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth, [says leading academic](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/mass-extinction-life-on-earth-farming-industrial-agriculture-professor-raj-patel-a7914616.html) at the "the [Extinction and Livestock Conference](http://www.extinctionconference.com)"
1.1.5.4.3.2.1.1. Con: Sustainable farming practices do not have these problems. This fails as a criticism of farming as a whole.
1.1.5.4.3.2.1.2. Pro: This will lead to a lonely, isolated world for humans in which we're one of the few species to survive.
1.1.5.4.3.2.1.2.1. Con: More than likely the few species that are left are the ones we most interact with \(like cats, dogs, etc.\), so that's not going to much of an issue in the future.
1.1.5.5. Con: There are still so many vegan options that being vegan should not feel too restrictive.
1.1.5.5.1. Con: Crops are likely going to be ravaged by diseases \(like [blight](https://www.britannica.com/science/blight) and [greening](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/pests-diseases/hungry-pests/the-threat/citrus-greening/citrus-greening-hp)\) due to higher monocropping potential from more people eating the same food. This would lead to a decrease in variety, which'll feel restrictive.
1.1.5.5.2. Con: Market forces could likely cause a limitation of options \(to save costs\), which could potentially lead to a feeling of restriction greater than with vegan diets now.
1.1.6. Con: It is [speciesist](https://www.britannica.com/topic/speciesism) to grant humans the right to eat meat on grounds of their enjoyment or freedom when raising cattle for human consumption necessitates depriving these animals of the same rights to freedom and enjoyment.
1.1.6.1. Con: Speciesism is a naturally occurring phenomenon.
1.1.6.1.1. Pro: Complex cognitive differences in how humans think and experience emotions mean that it is natural for us to perceive ourselves as [superior](https://speakingofresearch.com/2016/12/06/not-just-intelligence-why-humans-deserve-to-be-treated-better-than-animals/) to other animals.
1.1.6.1.2. Con: [Speciesism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/speciesism)(Ryder, Singer, and other opponents of speciesism have claimed that it is exactly analogous to racism, sexism, and other forms of irrational discrimination and prejudice.) is grounded in genetic proximity and is rejected on the same grounds that we reject Nazi-Germany, racism, and genocide. Genocidal tendencies are "natural" in evolution but morally reprehensible nonetheless.
1.1.6.1.3. Con: Just because something is natural does not mean that it is good. This is the [appeal to nature fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/36/Appeal-to-Nature).
1.1.6.1.4. Pro: Animals dominating other animals is natural, thus humans using animals to their own ends is not unethical.
1.1.6.1.4.1. Pro: Animals are killed in inhumane ways by predators like lions, eagles, and so on in nature. What humans do is much more ethical than their methods.
1.1.6.1.4.1.1. Con: With regard to the definition \([1st one](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/humane)\) of humane, killing perfectly healthy animals just because of preference or taste is neither tender nor compassionate and shows no sympathy for the animal. There is no way to kill a human humanely, nor an animal.
1.1.6.1.4.1.2. Con: Humans don't always kill in the most humane way possible. There are many examples of animals being killed in extremely inhumane ways, even when better alternatives are the norm. [1](http://www.flanderstoday.eu/business/tielt-slaughterhouse-closed-after-graphic-video-footage-released), [2](https://nltimes.nl/2018/06/20/animals-boiled-alive-dutch-slaughterhouses)
1.1.6.1.4.1.3. Con: Comparing humans to animals that dont have the option other than to kill doesn't excuse humans killing. We have the higher thinking to understand we are taking a life and that we have other food options, that is what makes it morally wrong.
1.1.6.1.4.1.3.1. Pro: Carnivores have bodies that require them to eat meat. If these types of animals were capable of not eating meat \(especially when meat's not around\), they may choose not to at times.
1.1.6.1.4.1.4. Con: The reason why humans kill less animals is because there is a proportionally smaller population of humans to all the animals who eat meat in the world, not because humans are more moral in killing animals.
1.1.6.1.4.1.5. Con: What goes on in nature is irrelevant in this case because veganism is about reducing the harm caused by humans.
1.1.6.1.4.1.6. Pro: Predators often [wound prey and let it die for hours or days](https://io9.gizmodo.com/9-predators-with-the-most-brutal-hunting-techniques-510100768) to get an easy prey in the wild, so humans eating an animal through killing it quickly and with as little pain as possible would be more ethical than this.
1.1.6.1.4.1.7. Pro: The amount of animals killed by humans are way smaller than the "natural" biosystem altogether, so these minor amounts are marginal in the overall larger picture.
1.1.6.1.4.1.8. Pro: Humans have technology to kill animals more ethically than we our any animal could in nature to the point it creates such minimal harm that it's not unethical at that point.
1.1.6.1.4.2. Pro: Animals such as [cats](https://www.cuteness.com/blog/content/why-do-cats-torture-their-prey) and dolphins hunt and torture their prey.
1.1.6.1.4.2.1. Con: Veganism is a statement of ethical nature, and humans are the only species capable of ethics and of the notion of morality. It is therefore irrelevant to veganism that non-human animals display traits of cruel behaviour towards other animals.
1.1.6.1.4.3. Con: -> See 1.1.6.1.3.
1.1.6.1.4.4. Con: Nearly all widely held principles of ethics with humans [diverge](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reclaiming-childhood/201106/only-humans-have-morality-not-animals) from what happens in the natural, animal world.
1.1.6.1.4.5. Con: Simply because an authority such as nature does some action that does not make the action morally correct.
1.1.6.1.4.6. Con: Humans, unlike other animals, do not need to harm animals to live and thrive, which makes it unethical.
1.1.6.1.4.7. Pro: Animals would still be killed by other animals.
1.1.6.1.4.7.1. Con: Only to survive, not as much as we kill animals.
1.1.6.1.4.7.1.1. Pro: This is more natural in comparison with intensive factory farming and slaughter.
1.1.6.1.4.7.2. Con: The fact that people are still raped and murdered in Syria doesn't relieve us of the ethical obligation to not rape and kill.
1.1.6.1.4.7.3. Con: Veganism is an ethical statement, and ethics only apply to humans \(as they are the only species capable of the very notion of ethics\). Veganism does not apply to animals, and the fact that wild animals would keep on predating is therefore irrelevant.
1.1.6.2. Con: It's actually speciesist for humans to not be able to participate in eating other animals when other animals get to do so, not vice versa.
1.1.7. Con: It's a loaded statement, a ["begging the question" fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question) where the word 'food' is used to make the statement seem reasonable. So, yes humans should be free to choose any food they wish, but not animals \(which in reality are not food\).
1.1.7.1. Pro: It's unnecessary killing of animals.
1.1.7.1.1. Pro: Animals have a life of their own to live, which does not rely of serving humans. Instead, it's for their own survival or that of its species. It's just humans use the word 'food' to justify unjustifiable actions.
1.1.7.2. Pro: Prizing animals over other sources for protein is a man-made decision, not a natural one, especially with the [discovery of fire](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/).
1.1.7.3. Con: As animals are frequently eaten by carnivores and omnivores alike, including humans, it is factually inaccurate to say that animals are not food.
1.1.7.3.1. Con: A simple reading of the dictionary entry for 'food' ignores the cultural aspects of it. If asked what food one can buy at a UK supermarket you will not be able to buy cat, dog or human, because, culturally, they are not food. Veganism is the understanding that animals qualify for the same taboo.
1.1.7.3.2. Pro: Humans shouldn't be treated differently \(i.e. with a double-standard\) than other animals, as humans are animals too and tend to eat other animals.
1.1.7.3.2.1. Pro: The double standard for humans to not be able to eat meat, but animals can is a biased opinion; the self-hate for one's species should not be a contribution towards humanity.
1.1.7.3.2.2. Con: There is a difference between humans and other carnivores and omnivores, as humans act like an invasive species, but for all ecosystems. In fact, we're considered "[the most dangerous](https://www.theodysseyonline.com/humans-dangerous-invasive-species)" of them all. So we should be treated differently, because we act differently, worse than any other animal in existence.
1.1.7.4. Pro: If a higher developed, more intelligent species were to invade our planet and develop a taste for human flesh, no human would advertise the invaders' rights to eat what they want. We would want them to recognize our will to live and find something else to eat. If we put ourselves above animals because of our higher intellect, that intellect also compels us to treat those who are dependent on us with their best interests in mind.
1.1.7.5. Con: Plants can be regarded as very intelligent beings and therefore as non-human food. They can communicate, they can develop [social structures](https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/), they can have [sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_reproductive_morphology), they can even "[walk](http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20151207-ecuadors-mysterious-walking-trees)" or eat "[animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorous_plant)".
1.1.7.5.1. Con: Plants are not regarded by the biological sciences as having an intelligence comparable to that of animals especially in respect to the ability to suffer. If the claim was sincere one could not make an ethical distinction between harming one's neighbour and mowing his lawn.
1.1.7.6. Con: Calling animals "not food" is equally fallacious as calling them food. Both are based one's opinion on the matter.
1.1.7.7. Pro: If there is no difference between the cost, taste, nutrients, etc. between synthetic meat and natural meat. Preferring the latter is simply hateful and nonsensical, as it implies being content with contributing to animal deaths.
1.1.7.7.1. Con: Killing does not necessarily involve suffering. It is, in fact, a natural part of life, and is not innately immoral.
1.1.7.7.1.1. Con: Animals in the wild act based on instinct, not morality, and are therefore not suited as role models for our modern society. Rape, cannibalism, coprophagy and infanticide are prevalent in the animal kingdom, yet we humans reject such acts.
1.1.7.7.1.1.1. Con: As well as eating other forms of life, animals also drink water, breathe air, and defend themselves when threatened. Just because animals instinctively partake in a particular behavior does not implicitly make it an amoral act.
1.1.7.7.1.2. Con: Even if killing was without suffering, it does not make it OK or morally valid.
1.1.7.7.1.2.1. Con: It doesn't make it immoral, either. There is no morality inherent to the act itself, without context; it is neutral.
1.1.7.7.2. Con: If advancements in the field of cellular agriculture / in vitro meat will lead to people choosing the cruelty-free option anyways, one could argue that there is no reason to go vegan now while these alternatives do not exist.
1.1.7.7.3. Pro: When we reach that point, animal suffering \(a.k.a. killing animals for no purpose, so they die in vain\) should naturally be abandoned and maybe enforced. Some movements already support banning hunting and fishing as "fun" to avoid having animals be cooked after a horrible death.
1.1.8. Pro: Unlike many examples of immoral behaviour such as homicide, whether eating meat constitutes an immoral act is not widely agreed-upon. In such cases where a consensus opinion is lacking, it seems questionable that arbitrary moral standards should be applied.
1.1.8.1. Con: The moral arguments for veganism do not primarily argue against eating meat, but about [killing sentient beings](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2012.727135). And killing beings capable of feeling pleasure or pain to have a nice meal out of them is not morally blurry \(according to most contemporary philosophers at least\).
1.1.8.2. Con: Consensus or popularity are fallacious standards for judging moral questions. For example, slavery has never been right, despite being formerly the subject of consensus and popular acceptance.
1.1.9. Pro: The most commonly agreed benefit of veganism is morality, yet it is [not undisputed](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/pop-psych/201311/curious-case-vegan-moral-hypocrisy). Claiming that all humans should become vegan is therefore no more justified than insisting that all people follow a single religious teaching.
1.1.10. Pro: Food preferences are a personal choice, as morality is personal and people are free to decide what is the right and wrong food after listening to their conscience.
1.1.10.1. Pro: While there are more merits to being vegan, the proper statement should be "all humans ought to be vegan" as ultimately, what one eats is entirely their choice.
1.1.10.1.1. Con: It is not. This "choice" is a not only a result of education but also one of massive propaganda through tens of millions in lobbying and 24/7 advertising. It is an industry after all defending its own interests. It is also a result of quasi complete ignorance, judgement mechanisms and consent fabrication operated on self, since childhood.
1.1.10.1.1.1. Pro: People tend to be selfish, and the propaganda just feeds into this individualism without either side looking at the consequences of such decisions.
1.1.10.1.2. Con: People getting to eat what they want would make sense if meat is sustainable. However, being unsustainable, not everything that people eat will be their choice. If we run out of meat, then the first person that picked meat got their way for their choice, whereas the next person doesn't. Thus, what one eats is not entirely their choice, but instead dictated by their environment \(a.k.a. what's available\).
1.1.10.1.3. Con: Choice only makes sense if people's actions do not affect anyone else's. Once it affects others, people's choices do not get to be entirely their own.
1.1.10.1.3.1. Pro: Meat gets treated like a [public good](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp), because everyone needs to eat food and most people eat meat. However, it cannot support everyone. Vegan foods are more of public goods than meat is, so they should replace meat.
1.1.10.1.3.1.1. Pro: Meat is more of a [quasi-public good](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp), because it is unsustainable \(a.k.a. one person's food choices depletes another's\), whereas veganism is more sustainable and acceptable by the public, making it more of a public good. Thus, veganism is what the public should strive towards.
1.1.10.1.3.1.2. Pro: Meat is more likely to run into the free rider problem \([1](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp), [2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Free_rider_problem)\) than veganism. Meat takes more resources to accomplish, which makes it harder to contribute to than veganism.
1.1.10.1.3.1.2.1. Pro: This leads to the issue where people starve in an omnivore world. When one person takes more than they contribute, another person has nothing to take, because they did not give enough either or gave enough, but the resource is already taken by the free rider.
1.1.10.1.3.1.2.1.1. Pro: In a vegan world, this is less of a worry. Efficiency is greater, which lowers the bar for contributing to the public good. This allows for more access for all and less of one person taking from another.
1.1.10.1.3.1.2.2. Pro: The free rider problem is an example of a market failure. Veganism is the way to go, because it is less likely to run into this type of market failure, making it better for the economy's functioning and sustainability.
1.1.10.1.3.2. Pro: Veganism is more beneficial to the [common good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good) than meat is, because it is more beneficial for all and better achieved through citizenship than meat.
1.1.10.1.3.2.1. Pro: Vegan foods are easier to make [common goods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_%28economics%29) than meat is, because their lower prices makes the non-exclusivity part of creating them as common goods more feasible to accomplish.
1.1.10.1.4. Pro: Some people feel the need to eat meat \(both for health or for their body asking for it\). It's unfair to prohibit it.
1.1.10.1.4.1. Con: If the world's vegan transition is gradual, then people can adapt to prohibitions along the way without getting offended.
1.1.10.1.4.1.1. Pro: Even though it is unfair to prohibit animal products now \(as people still crave them\), the opposite would be true after being in a vegan world for a while \(as people will repulse non-vegan items with their cravings eventually\).
1.1.10.1.4.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.8.2.2.
1.1.10.1.4.2. Con: Fairness is subjective.
1.1.10.1.4.2.1. Pro: Unfairness requires differences, where one side gets mistreated \(like our current situation of multiple diets existing\). However, since everyone has the same diet in a vegan world, then fairness would not be a worry.
1.1.10.1.4.2.2. Pro: If one argues that it is unfair to force another into doing something they don't want, the logical conclusion is that forcing animals into captivity and untimely deaths is also unfair. Prioritizing people's needs above animals causes animal needs to be neglected in the process.
1.1.10.1.4.3. Con: Prohibitions may be a necessity to get maintain the world to prevent it from getting worse, in which case it is very justifiable to prohibit animal products when it leads to issues. If anything, it's unfair to others not to prohibit it.
1.1.10.1.4.3.1. Pro: Society eventually removes what is repulsive, as people evade their dislikes. Hence, if everyone wants to be vegan, no one will mind or notice laws banning animal products, but instead encourage it.
1.1.10.1.4.4. Pro: Much like taking an addict off of what they're addicted to immediately would give them withdrawal symptoms, it would be unethical to put a person through that too if they're addicted to meat.
1.1.10.1.4.4.1. Pro: Taking a person off of meat would give them withdrawal symptoms that can make a person unwell or can be dangerous. These are not beneficial to create them in people through prohibiting the addicting food.
1.1.10.1.4.5. Pro: People will just seek out the animal products anyway if they crave them or feel they 'need' it to where they see no alternative. Depriving them of something that a person truly feels in need of \(even if in reality it's not true\) would be unethical if no better alternative is provided.
1.1.10.1.4.6. Con: Prohibiting animal products would allow people to be better off, as they can both simultaneously get away from harm and also have an alternative that gives them benefits. That goes beyond fair to being a plus!
1.1.10.1.4.6.1. Pro: Once people finds vegan methods to address the health and craving concerns, then the need for animal products will stop being there. Prohibiting would make sense then, as keeping something around that no one wants would just be offensive and repulsive.
1.1.10.1.4.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.7.1.
1.1.10.1.5. Pro: Being able to make a vegan choice or non vegan choice is an important freedom. When we can engage in a balanced decision process, we are more likely to see diverse outcomes \(that move towards total veganism\) e.g. eating much less meat/ only eating meat at traditional festivities
1.1.11. Pro: Veganism is a choice and should not be forced on children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.
1.1.11.1. Con: Eating meat is not in our nature. Everyone is born a vegetarian, but gets into eating meat through parental choosing \(around [4-6 mths old](https://www.babycenter.com/404_when-can-my-baby-eat-meat_1368509.bc)\) and cultural conditioning reinforcement later \(see TV advertisements for [fast food](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsX2PGi5IY) and [lunch meals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrWtXvI1kaU)\).
1.1.11.1.1. Pro: Children are often not educated on the source of their food and distracted from their natural empathy for animals. The artificial divide between animals which are okay to eat and those that are not begins with parenting.
1.1.11.1.2. Con: As humans are conscious beings for the sake of argument, no one can be technically be called vegetarian at birth. This is because babies cannot decide what they eat. One could make the argument that kids shouldn't eat vegetables because they don't naturally like them, but that wouldn't make much sense. In any case babies only gravitate "naturally" towards breast milk but that's about it, any other claims are completely subjective.
1.1.11.2. Con: The same goes for animal products, where they should not be forced onto children until they're old enough to decide for themselves.
1.1.11.3. Con: It's really meat that's forced onto children rather than the other way around, as everyone starts off with eating vegan foods when they are young and only start to eat meat later when their bodies can handle it.
1.1.11.4. Con: The parent should be able to act as a moral compass and mediate their child’s behaviour to act in accordance with their virtues \(including not choosing veganism for the negative reasons\), at least until they're old enough to make their own, better decisions.
1.1.11.4.1. Pro: If a child’s behaviour is unseemly to the parent \(like doing something unethical, in this case choosing to eat meat\), they are justified to reprimand the child accordingly \(to follow what they deem is proper behavior and avoid what's not\).
1.1.11.5. Pro: A child will look up to the parents for guidance \(like when they lie, can't forgive someone, steal, or when they choose to or not to eat meat\). So parents can provide their advice to them when they are ready for it, so their children can make decisions for themselves based on what they hear.
1.1.12. Con: If everyone wants to eat vegan it'll be free will that gets us there, rather than being a hindrance to it.
1.1.12.1. Pro: Just like how the suppression of using drugs later lead to a [spike in popularity](https://www.mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening) once available, the same could happen with veganism if everyone at the same time became free to access what was previously limited \(like stigma and a lack of supply\).
1.1.13. Con: Free humans who are adequately informed and supported would make the correct choice, whatever that may be. This conversation is intended to find what that correct choice is, not decide top-down what we should force on individuals.
1.1.13.1. Pro: A significant subset of substantially-free humans, despite being well-informed, make choices that negatively impact and harm other equally-free-humans all the time. These bad-actors have an outsize impact on their peers.
1.1.13.2. Pro: Educating about veganism and creating the right conditions for people to choose vegan options more often is not equal to paternalism.
1.1.13.3. Pro: -> See discussion #31640: People should go vegan if they can.
1.1.13.4. Con: There may be a variety of "correct choices" depending on a person's angle. If there is no single correct choice, then we cannot expect humans to 'make the right choice'.
1.1.13.4.1. Pro: If one merely wants to have a generally healthy diet then one can pick one of the numerous diets that all fulfil the bodies daily needs.
1.1.13.4.2. Pro: If one wants to reduce their environmental impact then one could go with a diet focused more on fruits and vegetables.
1.1.13.4.3. Pro: If one wants to merely indulge in the food that they like the most then nearly any diet could be viable.
1.1.13.4.4. Pro: It is not possible to get through life without imposing some cruelty on the creatures around us, where it is through crop spraying, the elimination of a wasps nest etc.
1.1.14. Con: Being vegan could motivate or inspire other people to become vegan of their own volition.
1.1.14.1. Pro: Many people have tried becoming vegan after seeing [popular celebrities](https://www.peta.org/features/why-do-people-go-vegan/) doing the same.
1.1.14.2. Con: Eating animals elevates their lives, which is a ['godly deed'](https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2941/jewish/Meat.htm) in religion \(at least in Jewish religion\). Not eating them is what truly causes them to suffer and is less moral, because then the animal cannot be elevated spiritually.
1.1.14.3. Pro: People can look to each other with awe and inspiration with its admirability characteristic.
1.1.14.4. Con: Veganism is only admirable in the eyes of other vegans and seen as unintelligent or at least an uninformed stand by those who are convinced it is not a healthy human diet and ecologically unsustainable.
1.1.15. Pro: Society should protect, and not get in the way of, an individual's freedom of choice.
1.1.15.1. Pro: A vegan society would restrict people's individual liberties, which would make society worse off overall.
1.1.15.1.1. Con: When there is a conflict of interests, restriction of certain liberties is necessary for the enforcement of other liberties. “Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins”. To give some people total freedom would be to neglect someone else's.
1.1.15.1.2. Con: Nobody in any society can eat what he/she wants, so nobody has completely free individual liberties. A\) Some consumables are illegal B\) Some consumables are toxic or dangerous C\) we are already restricted in our consumption because we can't digest many things.
1.1.15.1.3. Con: Individuals don't have the liberty to own slaves, rape, kill others, defecate in public transport, or drive while under the influence, etc. Yet these societies are not worse off because of it.
1.1.15.1.4. Con: It's inappropriate to speak of personal choice or exercise of individual freedom when there are [victims](http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/eating-meat-is-personal-choice).
1.1.15.1.5. Pro: Restricting liberties would limit one's autonomy, which is a barrier to an individual's independence. This issue should be avoided at all costs.
1.1.15.1.6. Pro: When people cannot be independent, then they are more dependent on whomever thinks for them \(in this case, the government\). Thus, the world being vegan would turn countries into [nanny states](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nanny+state), so citizens become more reliant on the government for decisions.
1.1.15.1.6.1. Pro: The movement countries towards nanny states could set its citizens up for failure. When the government stops being there for its people, then people will not be able to take care of themselves anymore \(because their thought capabilities were taken away\), which limits their capability of surviving in the world.
1.1.15.1.7. Con: If we restricted animal product consumption, the amount of damage a human can do to the environment would also be reduced, which in turn benefits the whole human population since climate change and pollution affect us all. Restricting an individual liberty for the protection of humanity would not make society worse off.
1.1.15.1.8. Pro: Killing some animals for food is an example of a human liberty.
1.1.15.1.8.1. Con: Liberty ends where needless suffering begins.
1.1.15.1.8.2. Con: Vegans want non-vegans to want to, of their own volition, become vegan.
1.1.15.1.8.2.1. Pro: And that in a similar manner as parents want their children to do what is right as they know this is for their own benefit and also best for others.
1.1.15.1.8.2.2. Con: The [same](https://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Pressure-to-Eat-Meat-How-To-Stick-To-Your-Vegan-Guns) could be said about non-vegans too.
1.1.15.1.8.2.3. Con: Some vegans want to restrict human rights from killing animals.
1.1.15.1.8.2.3.1. Con: This is not a [mainstream view](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) of veganism.
1.1.15.2. Pro: Since coercion is not justified there is no way to make all humans stop eating meat.
1.1.15.2.1. Pro: Coercion is not justified against animals either given their suffering and, ultimately, death from it.
1.1.15.2.2. Con: The claim does not suggest that people should be stripped of their right to consume meat. It suggests that the world would be greatly improved if they did not consume animal products.
1.1.15.2.2.1. Pro: Humans will not be coerced into becoming vegan, as everyone will decide together to be vegan on their own free will.
1.1.15.2.3. Pro: Forcing all of humanity to be vegan on ethical grounds would presume impossible levels of moral and logical infallibility, empirical knowledge, and total certainty.
1.1.15.2.3.1. Con: As the same could be said about any law that forces all people to behave in a certain way, the reasoning is clearly fallacious. Perfect certainty is never required: only high confidence and justification, both of which vegans have.
1.1.15.2.4. Con: Unjustified coercion \(towards pressuring people to eat meat\) already exists in the meat-dominated world. Thus, unjustified coercion will not stop a vegan society from existing, as it already found success in getting humans to eat meat.
1.1.15.2.5. Con: In Consequentialist terms, coercion is justified when it is the course of action that will yield the most beneficial, least harmful outcome. If coercion effectively eradicates meat consumption, many may see this as justified as it produces the best outcome.
1.1.15.2.5.1. Pro: Coercion can be the push that people need to move in the right direction. So if the coercion is justified, then it will provide motivation in getting people to stop eating meat.
1.1.15.3. Pro: Society should be able to be set up any way deemed fit to allow for the individual's freedom of choice.
1.1.15.4. Con: Society must always place limits on freedom of choice, otherwise individuals could make decisions that would harm others within the society.
1.1.15.4.1. Pro: There will always be a point where one person's choices will limit the ability of another to access their rights, or limit their choices. This is why we value certain rights above our freedom of choice \(e.g. right to life, liberty etc.\).
1.1.16. Pro: It is immoral to restrict the rights of other humans to eat animals, so long as in doing so they do not infringe on the rights of other humans.
1.1.16.1. Con: Humans should not be given special treatment solely out of morality as humans are animals too. They should be allowed to be eaten if they are weak, because morality is subjective and has no function in my quest for survival through nourishment.
1.1.16.2. Pro: True, that is why veganism works, because people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is infringed due to the few people that want to eat meat.
1.1.16.2.1. Pro: With global warming threatening human existence, many people will not have the capability to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, not being vegan infringes on the rights of everyone just trying to exist.
1.1.16.3. Con: It is immoral to restrict the rights of animals in order to give humans more rights \(especially when humans do not need animals to live\).
1.1.16.4. Con: Whether or not humans are "restricted" from eating meat does change that they morally should not do so. As an analogy, in a society with free speech you are not restricted from saying horrible things about other people or lies, but it does not change that you should not do so.
1.1.16.5. Con: There is no right that allows us inflict unnecessary suffering on anyone. Not on animals, not on humans. While restricting the rights of other humans to eat animals is immoral, what is truly immoral here is mass murder of animals that is happening at the moment. Thus, the right of the animal to live trumps the right of humans to eat animals, due to a greater morality priority.
1.1.16.6. Con: It is immoral to restrict the rights of other humans to eat anything \(including vegan food\), yet it still happens. If humans weren't restricted in what they eat, then there may be more vegans.
1.1.16.7. Con: No one's stopped from making their own decisions when going vegan, as they'll come to it through their own free will. They'll still eat what they want, but through a vegan framework.
1.1.16.8. Pro: The well-being of people has more value than the well-being of animals.
1.1.16.8.1. Con: The well-being of humans and the well-being of animals are not mutually exclusive.
1.1.16.8.2. Con: Every individual values his personal well-being the highest; human as well as animal. We should not justify imposing our will upon others because of this, human or animal.
1.1.16.8.3. Pro: Causing animals suffering, while regrettable, is not reason enough to deprive people of an entire category of food.
1.1.16.8.4. Con: Animal lives are of sufficient value that we should not inflict needless suffering onto them when non-animal alternatives exist.
1.1.16.8.4.1. Pro: Veganism is a moral imperative. Since nonhuman animals are sentient, can suffer, and have a will to live, critics of animal rights would have to explain why those traits are not sufficient to grant animals such rights given they are the basis for moral treatment of fellow humans. Critics need to name what trait humans have that other animals don't have that justify such differential treatment, such that a human lacking this trait can be killed for food without it being immoral.
1.1.16.8.4.1.1. Con: Critics could, alternatively, argue that 'rights' are not the ideal system for making moral decisions, but that they are in place because they simplify moral problems and their solutions.
1.1.16.8.4.2. Pro: Fur coats [not needed](http://www.haveyoupackedthecamera.com/blog/articles/antarctica/antarcticaClothingOuterLayer.htm) for warmth in any weather condition, thus they lead to the pointless and [cruel](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1366983/How-ethical-fur-fashion-industrys-cynical-yet.html) death of many animals.
1.1.16.8.4.3. Con: Animals only have value because they give value to humans.
1.1.16.8.4.3.1. Pro: They taste good.
1.1.16.8.4.4. Pro: Animals are [sentient](https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en), which relates to having moral value.
1.1.16.8.4.4.1. Pro: Sentience \(rather than appearance, intelligence, ability, etc.\) is generally the only morally relevant criterion we require in the human context to protect one's right not to be treated exclusively as a resource by another. Thus, we need only sentience as a moral justification to believe they are of sufficient enough value to not be killed.
1.1.16.8.4.5. Con: The life of an animal does not have enough value to outweigh the benefits of killing and consuming them.
1.1.16.8.4.5.1. Con: Humans are not inherently better than other animals \(an idea propped up by religion: [Genesis 1:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A26&version=NIV) [Genesis 1:27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A27&version=NIV)\), only evidently more cruel, subjecting animals to [confinement from birth, mutilation, and imbalanced diet to manipulate growth.](https://www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/animal-cruelty/) These aren't practiced by carnivorous animals in nature.
1.1.16.8.4.5.1.1. Con: Religion shows otherwise, that eating animals makes humans worse off \(as we are not above them\), not better. "Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags" [Proverbs 23:20-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+23:20-21).
1.1.16.8.4.6. Pro: Since we really have no purpose to make animals suffer \(unlike in the past\), it's no longer morally conscionable of us to continue to do so anymore.
1.1.16.8.4.6.1. Pro: We now know the futility of killing animals \(like [wolves for farming](https://www.thedodo.com/wolf-hunts-backfire-863508247.html)\), so to continue to do so, when it doesn't help \(but instead causes harm\) doesn't make conscionable sense.
1.1.16.8.4.6.2. Con: The discussion if a vegan diet can truly provide a balanced diet is [far from over](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0552-0). Taking that into account to claim that ‘we really have no purpose’ is premature.
1.1.16.8.4.7. Con: If one is concerned with numbers of deaths of living organisms, then this argument is actually in support of voluntary suicide via starvation, as many plants must be killed or aborted to support the life of one human being.
1.1.16.8.4.7.1. Con: When considering morality, it is necessary to draw a line. It is unlikely that most humans would adopt a moral position that requires them to starve themselves to death, therefore it is necessary to strike a balance between surviving and acting ethically.
1.1.16.8.4.8. Con: Animals do not have similar levels of [emotional comprehension](https://www.thoughtco.com/do-insects-feel-pain-1968409) or intelligence \([1](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KtMisEcJcwc/TFTVGEG6zhI/AAAAAAAABRo/namNhbv_brM/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/moravec+-+1900-2030+machine+intelligence.jpg), [2](http://www.archure.net/p/bbbGIFxx.GIF)\) to humans. Therefore they are of less value.
1.1.16.8.4.8.1. Con: 'Chattel animals' are not one species or group of species. There is a lot of variety. For example, [pigs](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201506/pigs-are-intelligent-emotional-and-cognitively-complex) are a lot more intelligent than most animals.
1.1.16.8.4.8.2. Con: The [ability to suffer](https://boingboing.net/2011/06/30/richard-dawkins-on-v.html) on a physical or even psychological level is not related or correlated to comprehension/intelligence.
1.1.16.8.4.8.2.1. Pro: Many mammals can get the same or at least very [similar mental conditions as humans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_psychopathology), including depression, OCD, anxiety disorders, etc.
1.1.16.8.4.8.3. Con: There are [difficulties in measuring emotional and general intelligence](https://www.smh.com.au/national/scientific-studies-of-animal-intelligence-and-emotion-reveal-surprising-traits-20150703-gi4nbh.html). To base a life's value on subjective ranking does not make sense.
1.1.16.8.4.8.3.1. Pro: Many times intelligence and emotion look substandard to humans because there are different types and humans might not be able to recognize the other types in other animals. For instance, fish feel pain, but people don't believe that they do, because [fish emotionally react differently to pain than humans do](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm).
1.1.16.8.4.8.4. Con: Humans are not [unique with abilities and skills, and if anything, worse than other animals](https://visual.ly/community/infographic/science/difference-between-humans-and-animals). That does make humans less valuable. Basing value on criteria does not make sense in regard to abilities and skill.
1.1.16.8.4.8.5. Con: Some humans are born with disorders that greatly reduce their cognitive / physical abilities, yet we do not deem it ethical to kill humans of much lesser intelligence. We currently base the value of an animal on its species, not its abilities, intelligence or sentience.
1.1.16.8.4.8.6. Con: Intelligence and emotional comprehension are hard to measure and all such measurements are taken from a human point of view, so it's only natural that humans come out on top in such comparisons. Vegans base their moral considerations on empathy \(recognizing that non-human animals have many of the same needs as humans as well as the capability to suffer\) instead of pseudo-objective measurements of intelligence.
1.1.16.8.4.8.6.1. Con: Even vegans are humans, so they have biases too. Vegans vary widely in their beliefs as to what is considered 'sentient' \(from those believing [bivalves](https://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/the-ethical-case-for-eating-oysters-and-mussels/) are not sentient to vegans to think [insects](https://www.ourhenhouse.org/2013/10/a-vegan-angel-of-death/) are fine to kill\). The best method is to treat all life with respect and dignity and have science create a universal standard for all to follow.
1.1.16.8.4.8.6.2. Pro: Animals, with their variety, react differently to stimuli \(such as [fish feeling pain and respond differently than humans](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm), but still emotionally\). Because they react differently, humans do not take it seriously or say their responses even exist or have merit. That is why people do not believe animals are intelligent or smart \(or at the same level\), when it reality they are, just differently \(but at times equally\).
1.1.16.8.4.8.6.3. Pro: Many meat supporters believe that when animals react to a stimuli, it is just a reaction rather than emotion. However, emotion is also a reaction. Thus, humans do not look at everything equally, or display a bias just because it is convenient \(even when it does not make sense\).
1.1.16.8.4.8.7. Con: Emotional comprehension's just one factor. The benefit that they bring to the world and others has value too. When every type of value is summed up, the net value would be adequate for comparison, not just one facet.
1.1.16.8.4.8.7.1. Pro: Plants and insects \(like bees and worms\) may not have the emotion we have \(or they might, we don't really know\), but they help us survive. This has value.
1.1.16.8.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.1.4.
1.1.17. Con: According to this argument, even cannibalism should be permitted. There have to certain restrictions, the premises of these limitations should be up for debate.
1.1.17.1. Pro: Individuals should not be free to eat other humans, thus there are limitations to what someone is allowed to eat. Vegans would argue that some of the same reasons cannibalism should be forbidden would apply to forbidding eating animals.
1.2. Pro: Worldwide veganism would improve [public health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690307/).
1.2.1. Con: Mental health issues could increase in a vegan world.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Various fears/anxieties can be exacerbated with worldwide veganism.
1.2.1.1.1. Pro: People usually use coping mechanisms, like avoidance \(called [escape](https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/coping-mechanisms)\), to overcome \(or at least avoid\) mental health issues. However, this will be less likely possible if the entire world is vegan, so these health conditions could build up and be even worse than what's seen today at a global scale if there's nowhere to escape too.
1.2.1.1.2. Pro: Various aspects of a single worldwide culture: [uniformity](https://achievingcoherence.com/2012/08/13/fear-of-uniformity/), [globalism](http://4liberty.eu/the-truth-behind-globalism-and-why-americans-fear-it/), [domination](https://www.verywellmind.com/xenophobia-fear-of-strangers-2671881), etc. can create fears/phobias that would only increase \(along with increasing anxiety and stress\) if worldwide veganism became a reality.
1.2.1.2. Pro: Veganism may be unhealthy for those who have suffered, or are suffering, from certain [eating disorders](https://www.beateatingdisorders.org.uk/types).
1.2.1.2.1. Pro: Particularly for those recovering from restrictive eating disorders, veganism can be adopted as a way to [legitimise](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402905/) continued restrictive eating behaviour.
1.2.1.2.1.1. Pro: In an informal survey of eating disorder dietitians, it was found that [90%](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/veganism-and-eating-disorders-is-there-a-link/2020/07/15/0f5fbd44-c6cd-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html) of their clients started following a vegan diet after they developed an eating disorder.
1.2.1.2.1.2. Con: The restrictive element of veganism exists precisely because it has not yet been adopted by the entire world. If veganism were the standard diet followed by everyone, it would necessarily no longer place constraints on an individual's food accessibility and diversity.
1.2.1.3. Pro: The quest for better health and with a greater amount of health consciousness in a world of vegans could trigger mental health issues in the population.
1.2.1.3.1. Pro: Veganism might exacerbate [modern health worries](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22729981/)(Participants who reported a high level of MHW showed nearly twice the risk of reporting a high level of SHC \(odds ratio \(OR\) = 1.83; 95 % confidence interval \(CI\) = 1.30-2.71; p = 0.001\), and they showed twice the risk for self-certified sick leave related to SHC \(OR = 2.04; 95 % CI = 1.01-3.92; p = 0.048\).).
1.2.1.3.2. Pro: Increased consciousness about health and lifestyle choices like veganism could give rise to increased [eco-anxiety](https://www.shondaland.com/live/body/a30470585/recognizing-eco-anxiety-what-it-is-and-ways-you-might-be-affected/).
1.2.1.3.3. Pro: Attempting to adhere to a strict vegan diet can lead to [orthorexia](https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/learn/by-eating-disorder/other/orthorexia), an [obsession](https://greatist.com/health/orthorexia-when-healthy-eating-turns-obsessive#1) with eating a 'pure' diet.
1.2.1.4. Con: Minority groups who share beliefs of purity \(e.g. non-diary food\) and ethics \(e.g. animal rights, animism\) and reinforce them through community rituals \(e.g. food preparation\) \[[1](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.1)\] find purpose and orientation, both with positive effects for mental health \[[2](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14427591.2000.9686472?casa_token=xudlz50E0VMAAAAA:i2ymiclj_7chGpbrUlzcBeCJjhuE4O5rfrlJKo96Alf7vDBRL5cgSCSjEiQRp45WNXvi7pk81-Sdab8), [3](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2011.tb00075.x?casa_token=EC6UznqhI8MAAAAA:LzZClpggJCtVz2rJmoq_zqm7aM30-xiF18_dmH3prpXBa91sw3uLcarlB86hJ5fWBX3HgyDsg0dFB7XedA)\].
1.2.2. Con: Veganism could potentially expose people to drugs \(recreational, legal, mild, etc.\) more, as many are plant-based, such as: caffeine, sugar, alcohol, opioids, narcotics, cocaine, marijuana, etc., which is a [great concern](https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/ungass-leaflet.pdf?ua=1) at the large-scale in public health.
1.2.2.1. Con: Although there are many plant-based drugs, many more are [pharmaceuticals](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/botanical-and-plant-derived-drugs-global-markets-300563001.html) and medicine, which are life-saving. Without them, many people wouldn't survive. So the benefits outweigh the risks of those recreational and other drug exposure.
1.2.2.2. Pro: Any way of preventing health issues from becoming full-scale \(like the [opioid crisis](https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/opioid-crisis-statistics/index.html#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20an%20estimated%2010.1,and%20745%2C000%20people%20used%20heroin.)\) is crucial to protecting the public's health and safety. Avoiding worldwide veganism might be an answer to avoiding widespread, global health scares by limiting their spread.
1.2.3. Pro: Nutritionally and biologically speaking, a vegan diet is healthier for and better-suited to humans than a non-vegan one.
1.2.3.1. Pro: A vegan diet would be healthier for infants.
1.2.3.1.1. Con: Some vegans [don't believe breastfeeding is vegan](https://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/115985/is_breastmilk_vegan_enough_for). Avoiding breastfeeding could be considered cruel, unnatural, and nutritionally quite sub-optimal, as it's a complete nutrient source and the alternative could put a baby at risk of malnourishment.
1.2.3.1.1.1. Con: It may at most follow that this specific subvariety of veganism should not be pursued, but it would not follow that a more standard form of veganism \(which doesn't oppose breastfeeding\) should not be pursued.
1.2.3.1.2. Pro: A vegan diet leads to [equal](https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/12/3029/htm)/better [infant brain development](http://www.medicosadventistas.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/A-cross-sectional-study-of-fatty-acids-and-brain-derived-neurotrophic-factor-in-human-milk-from-lactating-women-following-vegan-vegetarian-and-omnivore-diets.pdf), due to providing more [nutrients](https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=sustainability-curriculum-student) to help the brain grow, i.e. more [brain-derived neurotrophic factor \(BDNF\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-derived_neurotrophic_factor) .
1.2.3.1.2.1. Con: A vegan diet carries with it the risk of [growth and development problems](https://theconversation.com/why-vegan-diets-for-babies-come-with-significant-risks-108466) in babies, which may prevent them from reaching their optimal growth.
1.2.3.2. Pro: Vegan food is less likely to contain toxins and harmful chemicals.
1.2.3.2.1. Pro: Dairy or meat, unless sourced locally and organically, may contain many undesirable products related to [industrial farming](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/industrial-agriculture-101)(Industrial agriculture is the large-scale, intensive production of crops and animals, often involving chemical fertilizers on crops or the routine, harmful use of antibiotics in animals \(as a way to compensate for filthy conditions, even when the animals are not sick\). It may also involve crops that are genetically modified, heavy use of pesticides, and other practices that deplete the land, mistreat animals, and increase various forms of pollution.), antibiotics for example.
1.2.3.2.2. Pro: Vegan diets contain a lot less heavy metals and pollutants.
1.2.3.2.2.1. Con: There is [no significant difference](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620343249?casa_token=-GMoTvGjoiUAAAAA:5AsR3NJNA8A3as_qnjzD-yuNSEipiic2MZUIzPIbSfHVAMGi60sSh5VvBQUZ4Ikaj_lSY-On)(While the sources to the total intake differ, there is no significant differences in the risk of exceeding the PTDI across the four \[standard, carnivore, vegetarian and vegan\] dietary profiles.) between heavy metal consumption across different diets.
1.2.3.2.3. Pro: By not consuming animal products we are not consuming the [fear, stress](http://sciencenordic.com/meat-stressed-animals-unhealthy) and [hormones](https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/09/13/estrogen-animal-products/) that these creatures hold. Thereby potentially increasing positive [health](https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/hormones-food-supply-affect-human-body-2194.html).
1.2.3.2.4. Con: Vegan foods can contain toxins deleterious to human health.
1.2.3.2.4.1. Pro: Many vegan foods are not healthy for humans due to their [anti-nutrients](https://draxe.com/antinutrients/), such as oxalates and solanine. This can prevent people from absorbing nutrients they typically absorb in meat.
1.2.3.2.4.1.1. Pro: Legumes in general, and soybeans in particular negatively impact the thyroid and create issues with it's function \(like goiter - [1](https://academic.oup.com/endo/article-abstract/61/5/570/2775031), [2](https://search.proquest.com/openview/20a517f8041e1e1dc3a567d9a481eec3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1056336)\). Legumes is a [primary source](http://www.dietplanlist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/raw-vegan-diet-eating-plan-2d4605cd97bf2361445530e34ef140b8-PLYanB.jpg) of protein in the vegan diet.
1.2.3.2.4.2. Pro: Plants contain [phytotoxins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytotoxin) \(that they use to defend themselves with\) but have a negative effect on human health.
1.2.3.2.4.2.1. Pro: One example is handling [cashews](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/11577928/Blood-cashews-the-toxic-truth-about-your-favourite-nut.html), due to their toxins.
1.2.3.2.4.3. Pro: Many people fall ill \(or die\) from [mushroom poisoning](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2882543/).
1.2.3.2.5. Pro: Chemical fertilizers are safer for human health than manure.
1.2.3.2.5.1. Pro: Manure carries a host of diseases \([1](https://www.gardenguides.com/99768-diseases-found-cow-manure.html), [2](https://homeguides.sfgate.com/health-risks-chicken-manure-98289.html)\).
1.2.3.2.5.2. Pro: Farmed animal manure would [introduce antibiotics](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418018/) to the soil, whereas chemicals don't. It degrades the soil where it impacts the microorganisms and their microcosm there negatively and ultimately impacts our health in the end.
1.2.3.2.5.2.1. Con: Antibiotics would only be added to the soil if animals were being treated with antibiotics.
1.2.3.2.6. Con: Exposure to toxic chemicals still takes place and negatively impacts those who go/are vegan.
1.2.3.2.6.1. Pro: [Pesticide intakes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27588700) are higher on a vegan diet and is hard to avoid, even with [organic food](http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/organic.html).
1.2.3.3. Pro: A vegan diet may help mitigate the risk of certain diseases.
1.2.3.3.1. Pro: Vegans are less likely to be obese.
1.2.3.3.1.1. Pro: Vegan populations have, on average, a [lower body mass index](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26853923) \(closer to center of healthy range\) than people following an omnivorous diet.
1.2.3.3.1.1.1. Con: A lower body mass index doesn't necessarily mean that someone is healthy. BMI actually has some [limitations](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/obesity/bmi-limitations.php) as it is only a measure of excess weight not of imbalances in healthy levels \(such as that of protein, fat, bone, and more\).
1.2.3.3.1.1.1.1. Con: Vegans have a lower BMI due to being healthier \([less fat](http://www.vegkitchen.com/nutrition/do-vegans-have-a-weight-loss-advantage/)\).
1.2.3.3.1.1.1.2. Pro: Vegans tend to have a lower BMI with [less bone density \(due to less calcium intake\)](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9edd/5f5979f74cfdd9778722dc4a74bac1ca7894.pdf).
1.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.1. Con: According to the [article](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9edd/5f5979f74cfdd9778722dc4a74bac1ca7894.pdf), if vegans eat the same amount of calcium as omnivores, their bone density becomes the same. Thus, bone density has nothing to do with protein, but instead with calcium.
1.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.2. Pro: This is compounded by the fact that people lose bone density [as they age.](https://www.bones.nih.gov/health-info/bone/osteoporosis/bone-mass)
1.2.3.3.1.1.1.3. Con: There is [no difference](http://veggieprotein.com.br/artigos/cacao-amendoa/5.pdf) between vegans and non-vegetarians in terms of muscle mass.
1.2.3.3.1.1.1.3.1. Pro: Muscle mass increases and decreases with factors outside of diet, such as [creatine supplementation](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/13d9/247db5b39254ee6a786176c7eed63d04b2c2.pdf) and [age](https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/guide/sarcopenia-with-aging).
1.2.3.3.1.1.1.4. Pro: Someone may have a [lot of muscle from exercise](https://books.google.com/books?id=e_H3CAAAQBAJ&pg=PT156&lpg=PT156&dq=%22unhealthy+vegan%22+bmi&source=bl&ots=rMo36MvDf-&sig=ACfU3U1D1BwtLr3uhN62FJr4IzeH7HnPsg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjY6tGd573pAhUlO30KHV_4AVoQ6AEwAHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22unhealthy%20vegan%22%20bmi&f=false) and since muscle weighs more than fat - someone who is really healthy is going to have a high BMI. So it's not an accurate measure of health.
1.2.3.3.1.1.2. Pro: Even when factoring for healthy choices and the health of an individual as well as any other confounding factors, vegans have a [much lower chance](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/6/1267/4648730) than omnivores to be overweight or obese \(i.e. BMI greater or equal to 25: 35% for vegans vs 52% for omnivores and 54% for vegetarians\).
1.2.3.3.1.1.2.1. Pro: Even true vegan junk foods are still lower in components that lead to obesity. [Beyond Meat](https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/our-ingredients/), for instance, has "greater or equal protein levels than their animal counterparts, no cholesterol*, less saturated fat*, and no antibiotics or hormones." So it's harder to become obese, even when eating unhealthily.
1.2.3.3.1.2. Pro: Since [17%](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/) of a diet's calories typically come from dairy and meat, and [obesity](https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html) affects a significant portion of the population, plus is on the rise in [certain age groups](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/health/childhood-obesity-in-the-us-study/index.html), losing the calories from dairy and meat seems a logical choice in keeping a healthy weight. This will benefit civilization growth rather than harming it.
1.2.3.3.1.3. Pro: People's unhealthy diets are causing their bodies to get unbalanced \(such as [becoming obese](https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/03/21/Obesity-linked-to-death-of-taste-buds-change-in-diet/9291521638015/), which [meat causes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697260/)\). If we remove what is causing people to become ill, then people will be healthier and society will be better off.
1.2.3.3.1.3.1. Pro: People do not need to eat meat, because they tend to be healthier on a vegan diet. If they are lacking healthy choices in their new vegan diet, they can find ways to make it healthier \(like not eat junk food and supplement what they are missing\).
1.2.3.3.1.4. Pro: Some argue that drinking dairy milk [may lead](https://chestsculpting.com/milk-and-dairy-for-guys-with-man-boobs/) to men developing breast tissue.
1.2.3.3.2. Pro: A vegan diet can help prevent heart disease.
1.2.3.3.2.1. Pro: Excessive consumption of [eggs](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/eggs/)(While a 2008 report from the Physicians’ Health Study supports the idea that eating an egg a day is generally safe for the heart, it also suggests that going much beyond that could increase the risk for heart failure later in life.) can increase the risk of heart failure.
1.2.3.3.2.1.1. Con: One does not need to go vegan to decrease the risk of heart failure caused by excessive egg consumption; one can just eat less of them.
1.2.3.3.2.2. Pro: When [dairy fat](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/) was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively.
1.2.3.3.2.3. Pro: LDL Cholesterol-raised diseases contribute to [millions of deaths](https://world-heart-federation.org/world-heart-day/cvd-causes-conditions/risk-factors/cholesterol/)(Raised cholesterol is estimated to cause 2.6 million deaths \(4.5% of total\) and is implicated in heart diseases and stroke.) every year in the western world, and a vegan diet would have helped prevent them.
1.2.3.3.2.3.1. Pro: Vegans have significantly [reduced risk of ischemic heart disease](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26853923) compared to people following an omnivorous diet.
1.2.3.3.2.3.2. Pro: Saturated fats [raise LDL cholesterol](http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/The-Skinny-on-Fats_UCM_305628_Article.jsp#.WtV9mNP49E5) and the majority of saturated fat comes from animal sources.
1.2.3.3.2.3.3. Con: Any specialized diet would prevent cholesterol caused diseases. Most people have very bad diets and having any dietary lifestyle would be beneficial.
1.2.3.3.2.3.4. Con: Healthy diets can prevent cholesterol-caused diseases, so they don't need to be vegan to accomplish this.
1.2.3.3.2.3.5. Pro: A vegan diet [lacks dietary cholesterol](http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/diet/vegan-diets/) - the main cause of [heart disease](https://www.pcrm.org/health/medNews/cholesterol-levels-lower-in-vegans): the [#1 killer](http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death) worldwide.
1.2.3.3.2.4. Pro: A [modified vegan diet](https://mdedge-files-live.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf) has scientifically been proven to treat and reverse coronary artery disease \(CAD\).
1.2.3.3.2.5. Con: People can still eat components that are unhealthy on an omnivore diet in a vegan one \(such as excessive saturated fats, sugars, and salt\). A healthier diet would be a modified diet not only eliminating animal products, but also sources in excess of disease-triggering \(like [heart disease](https://www.mdedge.com/sites/default/files/Document/September-2017/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf)\) nutrients.
1.2.3.3.2.6. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.2.3.5.
1.2.3.3.2.7. Pro: High-protein diets such as the one followed by [Inuits](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-barnard-md/eskimo-myth_b_5268420.html) exposes them to heart disease issues and a short life expectancy in contrast to diets using less meat such as the [Okinawan diet](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/19/japanese-diet-live-to-100) which enables people to live over 100.
1.2.3.3.3. Pro: The consumption of some animal products has been linked to an increased risk of cancer.
1.2.3.3.3.1. Con: While drinking milk may raise IGF-1 levels, there is [some evidence](https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/93/17/1330/2519487) that overall it is protective from colorectal cancer.
1.2.3.3.3.2. Pro: There is evidence linking \(dairy\) milk consumption with an [increased risk](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/milk-and-breast-cancer-is-there-a-link) of developing breast cancer.
1.2.3.3.3.2.1. Con: Studies do not suggest a [link](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/dairy-products-and-breast-cancer-risk#What-other-research-has-found) between dairy consumption and increased risk of breast cancer.
1.2.3.3.3.2.2. Con: The UK Cancer Society suggests that, on a synthesis of the evidence, while it is not conclusive, dairy may in fact [be protective](http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/breast-cancer/risks-causes/diet) from breast cancer.
1.2.3.3.4. Pro: Vegan and vegetarian diets have been associated with a lower risk of Type 2 [diabetes](https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/eating-with-diabetes/veganism-and-diabetes) \([pp. 62-63](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/pdf/permj17_2p0061.pdf)\).
1.2.3.3.4.1. Pro: A whole-food plant-based diet that excludes animal products and refined foods is [beneficial](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/) for preventing and treating type 2 diabetes.
1.2.3.3.4.1.1. Con: Recent [research](http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085%2816%2935229-5/abstract) is controversially showing that [diets](https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/) high in animal protein and fat and severely limiting carbohydrates are long term a better option for type II diabetics than diets high in complex carbohydrates and low in fats.
1.2.3.3.5. Pro: If people eat a vegan diet, they can prevent deadly complications at the hospital from their meat-induced illness treatments.
1.2.3.3.5.1. Pro: Medical errors are the [3rd leading cause of death in the US](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/medical-errors-are-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us). People who follow a vegan lifestyle to avoid preventable diseases would less likely get and require treatment for them \(which increases their risk of medical errors\).
1.2.3.3.5.2. Pro: If people are less likely to get medical conditions with a vegan diet, they should be less likely to get [drug overdoses](http://www.drugwarfacts.org/node/2003) \(with leads to death\) from treating their preventable diseases too.
1.2.3.3.6. Con: Much of the research linking animal products with health issues can be [contradictory](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070611113729.htm).
1.2.3.3.6.1. Pro: There appears to be no difference between the mortality rate of vegans compared to meat eaters \([pp. 227-228](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4691673/pdf/ajcn119461.pdf)(Separating the vegetarians and vegans for the 6 most common causes of death did not reveal any statistically significant differences in mortality between vegans and regular meat eaters.)\).
1.2.3.3.6.1.1. Con: [Respondents](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/) \(n=6,381\) aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality during an 18 year follow up period. These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the source of proteins was plant-based.
1.2.3.3.6.1.1.1. Con: The issue is not a high- or plant vs animal intake, but the [bioavailability](http://www.ijkd.org/index.php/ijkd/article/viewFile/345/176) of proteins due to other chemicals in the food sources. Amino acids, protein, and phosphate levels might be the same, but since plants contain anti-nutrients, like phytates, they lower the potential for phosphates to be absorbed, thus lowering their impact on the kidneys.
1.2.3.3.6.1.1.1.1. Pro: This is confirmed when people take in pure phosphoric acid, like in [soda](http://www.ijkd.org/index.php/ijkd/article/viewFile/345/176). It does not matter if someone is vegan or not, when people fully absorb phosphorus, it damages their kidneys.
1.2.3.3.6.2. Pro: According to some sources, consumption of dairy is linked to a higher risk of [osteoporosis](https://iphysio.io/osteoporosis/), while others speculate that reducing dairy intake could reduce bone density \([p. 1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6521087/pdf/nutrients-11-00718.pdf)\), which would also increase this risk.
1.2.3.3.7. Pro: Eating vegan can help prevent [Alzheimer's](https://www.veganseatwhat.com/alzheimers-disease-vegan-diets/).
1.2.3.3.7.1. Pro: Research has shown that [reducing consumption of red meat and dairy](https://www.cbsnews.com/media/mind-diet-foods-avoid-alzheimers-boost-brain-health/) decreases the risk of developing Alzheimer's.
1.2.3.3.7.2. Pro: Avoiding having cats can prevent people from getting infected from Toxoplasma gondii, which can [lead to](https://www.beingpatient.com/cat-parasite-alzheimers/) Alzheimer's.
1.2.3.3.8. Con: Access to and consumption of dairy is [associated with](http://blog.usdec.org/usdairyexporter/dairy-makes-a-case-as-a-remedy-for-malnutrition) a reduction in vitamin deficiencies in communities at risk of malnutrition.
1.2.3.4. Con: New unhealthy habits/lifestyles might come with a vegan diet and outweigh its benefits.
1.2.3.4.1. Con: People might not go out to restaurants as much due to a lack of options, which is healthier.
1.2.3.4.1.1. Con: [Vegan restaurants](https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankateman/2019/08/21/vegan-restaurants-are-on-the-rise/#3dc781061e80) are on the rise.
1.2.3.4.2. Con: People might be more aware of their impacts on their health and environment if they go vegan, which can help them get towards a healthier lifestyle \(due to giving their health more scrutiny, research, and educational insights\).
1.2.3.4.2.1. Con: People care about their health or not. Choosing a certain diet is part of a health choice. Forcing someone to adopt a certain diet is not making people more health conscious.
1.2.3.4.3. Con: If vegans grow their own food \(especially hydroponic - [cleaner/less water usage, lower emissions...](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0b/37/7d/0b377d6f9c09d918ca60828c2ee0b6e8.jpg)\), their diet would be healthier yet on the planet/people.
1.2.3.4.4. Pro: A vegan diet might not be healthier for those with medical conditions, so animal products would still need to be around to keep these people alive.
1.2.3.4.4.1. Pro: Many people with eating and nutritional-based disabilities may be unable to remove animal products from their diets.
1.2.3.4.4.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.1.2.
1.2.3.4.4.1.2. Pro: Some [medications](https://www.livestrong.com/article/484289-medications-that-inhibit-iron-absorption/) and medical conditions \(e.g. [menorrhagia](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/blooddisorders/women/menorrhagia.html)\) can create predispositions for chronic anaemia. This can impact the effort/costs associated with going vegan \(being easier to get an iron deficiency with it\), and may even make it medically ill-advised.
1.2.3.4.4.1.2.1. Pro: Plant sources of iron only contain non-heme forms of iron, while meat sources contain both heme and non-heme. This source makes the iron content [more available for absorption and use in the body](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/) \(known as the bioavailability of a nutrient\). Vegans/vegetarians are expected to have almost 2x the recommended intake of iron to get sufficient iron absorption. This can be very difficult for someone with anaemia to build up their iron levels on a vegan diet, and even worse with a medical condition.
1.2.3.4.4.1.2.2. Con: [American Journal of Clinical Nutrition](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full): "Vegans generally have an adequate iron intake and do not experience anemia more frequently than others."
1.2.3.4.4.1.2.3. Con: There are simple ways to [increase absorption](http://\(https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.nu.01.070181.001011\)) and actually make it more efficient than heme iron.
1.2.3.4.4.1.2.3.1. Pro: This is especially true, as the latter is associated with [cancer](http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/canprevres/4/2/177.full.pdf).
1.2.3.4.4.1.3. Pro: If vegans take iron supplements \(due to anemia\), they aren't easily absorbed \(including liquid supplements\), provoking over time digestion problems and may be not absorbed at all \(thus incrementing the condition\).
1.2.3.4.4.1.3.1. Pro: This is especially true if the supplement does not contain or is not taken with vitamins that help absorb it, like Vitamin C \(which is crucial for non-heme iron absorption\).
1.2.3.4.4.1.4. Con: With the [definition](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism), in the \(unlikely\) case of survival or health concerns, the "as far as possible and practicable" clause makes it possible for such persons to be considered vegan as they would have no alternative options.
1.2.3.4.4.1.4.1. Con: While this is the definition as listed in the description, the full definition in the link provided continues: "... and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.". In other words, our working definition excludes all animal products from ones diet, even in survival situations.
1.2.3.4.4.1.4.2. Con: That definition is too vague. There are [different definitions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#cite_note-13) of veganism, many of which are not compatible with using animals in any circumstances. In a way we are all vegan depending on how easy you believe it is to reach all the necessary nutrition in your city harming as few animals as possible.
1.2.3.4.4.1.4.3. Pro: Veganism is not solely about diet. A person can still choose to live in accordance with vegan values, such as by avoiding animal circuses and leather/fur products.
1.2.3.4.4.1.5. Pro: Genetic conditions that cause nutritional deficiencies can prevent a person from removing meat from their diet.
1.2.3.4.4.1.5.1. Pro: People with [Celiac disease](https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/celiac-disease#genes) cannot eat wheat, which is a major source of [protein](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/wheat) for vegan diets.
1.2.3.4.4.1.5.1.1. Con: Although top allergens are also the top vegan protein sources: [soy, followed by wheat, then corn](https://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/), most new animal alternative companies are aware of them and offer products that aren't made with them. Now the most common one is [peas](https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/11/18661351/vergecast-podcast-beyond-meat-burger-pea-protein-interview) for meat and [almonds](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/static/img/research/us-dairy-alternatives-market.png) for milk.
1.2.3.4.4.1.5.2. Pro: [Retinol deficiency](https://www.healwithfood.org/vitamin-retinol/genetic-deficiency.php) is a genetically pre-disposed condition that prevents conversion beta-carotene to Vitamin A \(retinol\) in humans. Since plants have no retinol \(only beta-carotene\), humans with this condition cannot have a vegan diet, only one with animal products.
1.2.3.4.4.1.5.3. Con: People with [hemochromatosis](https://hemochromatosishelp.com/heme-iron-vs-non-heme-iron/) \(a [genetic condition](https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/hereditary-hemochromatosis)\) can benefit greatly from a vegan diet, due to the lower absorbing non-heme iron in plants \(compared to heme iron in meat\).
1.2.3.4.4.1.5.4. Pro: There is a large proportion of people with \[[g6pd](https://nutritionadventures.com/wellness/g6pd-deficiency-foods-to-avoid/)\] deficiency which may prohibit the consumption of legumes, e.g. beans, peas, lentils and soya beans or fava beans. Carbohydrates that can cause problems include white flour, refined sugars and high fructose corn syrup. In addition, problems can cause tonic water, blue food coloring and products containing sulphites such as wine and dried fruit.
1.2.3.4.4.1.6. Con: Rare disorders should not stop the world from becoming vegan, as more people will benefit than be negatively impacted. [Top diseases](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm) would be reduced so much with a vegan diet, that more individuals globally would benefit from going vegan than the reverse, just to prevent rare vegan-related and -specific medical conditions from occurring.
1.2.3.4.4.1.6.1. Pro: People who eat meat can create their own nutrition-based disabilities that require them to eat meat once they have it \(like [kidney disease](http://jacknorrisrd.com/are-there-medical-conditions-requiring-animal-foods/)\). If people stop eating meat to begin with, they would not damage their bodies to create their limited food options and preventable diseases.
1.2.3.4.4.1.6.1.1. Pro: Also, if people stop creating their own preventable diseases from eating meat \(like [thyroid conditions from mercury in fish](https://www.amymyersmd.com/2015/07/the-toxin-heavy-metal-and-thyroid-connection/)\), they would not require [animal-based](https://fpnotebook.com/Pharm/Adverse/AnmlDrvdPhrmctcls.htm) \(including from meat\) and -tested medications.
1.2.3.4.4.1.6.1.2. Pro: The reason why people go towards meat, is because their nutritional-based disability comes from eating meat and makes eating plant-based foods difficult \(like diabetes \(eating fruit\) and Chron's disease - [1](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jul/16/health.food), [2](https://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20560523,00.html)\). If people just avoid meat, they would not be forced to eat it later in life.
1.2.3.4.4.1.6.2. Pro: More eating and nutritional-based disabilities are caused by meat rather than the other way around \(the largest cause of death in the US is [heart disease](http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/557851c26da8114d1474389d-800-800/causes-of-death2.png), which meat contributes to, yet benefits from a [vegan diet](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-right-plant-based-diet-for-you)\).
1.2.3.4.4.1.6.2.1. Pro: A vegan world will find solutions to issues so they would not be a problem. Society may opt for genetic modification to prevent rare genetic conditions that require meat from existing. Without rare disorders existing, they would not get in the way of the world being vegan.
1.2.3.4.4.1.6.2.2. Con: We should make exceptions for the rare diseases that require meat if the world goes vegan.
1.2.3.4.4.1.7. Pro: Those with [IBS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritable_bowel_syndrome) often cannot tolerate [gluten](https://www.ibsdiets.org/fodmap-diet/fodmap-food-list/), most nuts, [beans and legumes](https://areyoutheresoy.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/low-fodmap.jpg), foods [high in insoluble fiber](https://www.webmd.com/ibs/ibs-triggers-prevention-strategies), or even at times [soy](https://www.ibsdiets.org/fodmap-diet/fodmap-food-list/) products. This makes it nearly impossible to consume daily protein and fiber requirements. A vegan diet would simply cause further health complications for individuals who suffer with IBS.
1.2.3.4.4.1.7.1. Con: Requiring animal products with IBS is an exaggeration, as people can be vegan on this diet. Even though some websites say to stay away from these foods and eat animal products instead, other [websites](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-health/ibs-ibd-and-the-role-of-diet/) say that animal products are the triggers and the stated vegan foods are possible to have with IBS.
1.2.3.4.4.1.7.1.1. Pro: There are plenty of vegan foods that have little to no fiber. One just needs to eat [high protein foods, especially meat alternatives](https://www.ourhenhouse.org/2016/01/eating-vegan-food-on-a-low-fiber-diet/) to avoid it.
1.2.3.4.4.1.7.2. Con: Although insoluble fiber is an issue, not all fibers are. In fact, soluble fiber [helps with it](https://www.webmd.com/ibs/news/20090828/ibs-relief-from-soluble-fiber). Those with IBS would actually gravitate towards [vegan foods](https://www.helpforibs.com/diet/fiber1.asp) \(as they're the only ones to have it\) and veganism to receive it consistently, rather than animal products.
1.2.3.4.4.2. Con: Many of these individuals could still be on a vegan diet if they modify their food choices. They may have more restrictions than the general population, but will still maintain the possibility for going in the same direction as everyone.
1.2.3.4.4.3. Con: A vegan diet prevents many medical conditions from forming, including some that require someone to take up or keep animal products in their diet. So we wouldn't need to keep animal products around if we can prevent it.
1.2.3.4.4.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.
1.2.3.4.4.3.2. Pro: A vegan diet clears the conscience \(with ideas like knowing it is less cruel and more eco-friendly\), which could lead to [less stress](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1476830514Y.0000000164) \(about health\) in life.
1.2.3.4.4.3.2.1. Pro: Some people don’t like the idea of animals being killed, yet they eat them. Refraining from eating animals would resolve this [cognitive dissonance](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738).
1.2.3.4.4.3.2.1.1. Pro: Cognitive dissonance can cause people [to feel](https://www.everydayhealth.com/emotional-health/cognitive-dissonance/how-why-reduce-cognitive-dissonance-you-feel/) stressed, irritated, and unhappy.
1.2.3.4.4.3.2.2. Con: -> See 1.2.1.3.
1.2.3.4.4.4. Pro: Those who cannot synthesize nutrients only found in animals, especially due to genetics, would not be able to go vegan.
1.2.3.4.4.4.1. Pro: People genetically not able to convert beta-carotene to Vitamin A would not be recommended for a vegan diet. The double whammy comes to them when beta-carotene buildup in the body presents [health problems](https://www.mygenefood.com/can-vegans-get-enough-vitamin-answer-may-genetic/) of its own.
1.2.3.4.4.4.1.1. Pro: Vitamin A \(retinol \([1](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/retinol#section=Top), 2\) - because it is in "[retinas](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Vitamin_A2#section=Top)"\) is [only found](http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/topics/vitamina.html) in animal sources. The body can only acquire it on a vegan diet by converting beta-carotene to this, so without being able to convert it, one would need to get it from animal products.
1.2.3.4.4.4.2. Pro: People who have [Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome](https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/smith-lemli-opitz-syndrome#genes) cannot synthesize cholesterol. A vegan diet would not be suitable for them, as it doesn't contain cholesterol and instead relies on the body to make it.
1.2.3.4.4.4.3. Con: If we find a way to synthesize nutrients \(that are not in vegan foods\) in a lab veganically, then they can go vegan as well.
1.2.3.4.4.4.4. Con: With modern technology, people could get tested for genetic diseases that prevent someone from going vegan, so they don't pass it down to their children. With this approach, eventually these diseases could be eradicated, so the world could go vegan.
1.2.3.4.4.4.5. Pro: Some [genetic variants are less able](https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002193#s1) to convert ALA to other Omega fatty acids.
1.2.3.4.4.5. Pro: People who are more sensitive to vegan foods would do better to eat animal products to avoiding risking getting sick through accidental contact with them.
1.2.3.4.4.5.1. Pro: A vegan world would leave people allergic to vegan foods more at-risk of coming into contact with and eating them accidentally.
1.2.3.4.4.5.1.1. Pro: In the [top 8 food allergens](https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079311.htm), vegan foods rank among them \(soy, tree nuts, peanuts, and wheat\).
1.2.3.4.4.5.1.1.1. Con: The top 8 food allergens list leads with milk, eggs, fish, crustaceans. [Milk allergies are the most common on the list.](http://www.stormsallergy.com/control/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FoodAllergies.png)
1.2.3.4.4.5.1.1.2. Con: There are many vegan alternatives to soy, tree nuts, and peanuts for [lysine content](https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report?nutrient1=505&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&fg=20&fg=9&fg=16&fg=12&fg=2&fg=11&max=25&subset=0&offset=0&sort=c&totCount=1276&measureby=g) \(not many are allergic to parsley\), and [methionine/cysteine](https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report/nutrientsfrm?max=25&offset=0&totCount=0&nutrient1=506&nutrient2=507&nutrient3=&fg=20&fg=9&fg=16&fg=12&fg=2&fg=11&subset=0&sort=c&measureby=g) for wheat \(sunflower seeds are pretty hypoallergenic\).
1.2.3.4.4.5.1.2. Pro: Some people have dietary restrictions like [oral allergy syndrome](https://www.webmd.com/allergies/features/oral-allergy-syndrome-foods), where they can't eat a host of produce at all.
1.2.3.4.5. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.2.4.1.
1.2.3.4.6. Pro: Vegan foods might have negative health consequences not seen with animal sources.
1.2.3.4.6.1. Pro: Pathogens that grow on vegan foods can be unsafe.
1.2.3.4.6.1.1. Pro: Bread mold should not be eaten, as it's [unsafe](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/can-you-eat-bread-mold#recommendation) to do so.
1.2.3.4.7. Pro: If going vegan makes one more prone to moral self-licensing, then transitioning to veganism should be consciously paired with other eco-friendly lifestyle choices, such as avoiding flight and fossile fuel car travel.
1.2.3.4.8. Pro: These habits are unhealthy for these types of vegans, but also those around them \(through a negative influence\).
1.2.3.4.9. Pro: Diseases specific to plant-based foods could increase if everyone became vegan.
1.2.3.4.9.1. Pro: One such example is [phytophotodermatitis](https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1119566-overview), which comes from citrus.
1.2.3.4.9.1.1. Con: This amounts to just speculation. Without data suggesting vegans have a higher prevalence of this, there is no reason to worry.
1.2.3.4.9.2. Pro: ["Trans-kingdom" pathogens](http://epi.ufl.edu/pathogens/plant-pathogens/) could make those with weak immune systems fall ill.
1.2.3.4.10. Con: Meat is known to increase [blood acidity](https://www.healthline.com/health/acid-foods-to-avoid#effects), which is linked to certain illnesses. Therefore, vegans are less likely to develop them.
1.2.3.5. Pro: There is [mounting evidence](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/health) that humans can not only survive, but thrive on plant-based diet.
1.2.3.5.1. Pro: 58% of omnivores were deficient in [folic acid](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26502280) according to a 2017 study in Switzerland.
1.2.3.5.2. Pro: Improving the health behavior of individuals through veganism is a health factor that increases their health outcome \([1](https://www.healthcatalyst.com/population-health/)\) individually.
1.2.3.5.3. Con: The evidence for eating a carnivorous diet being healthy is mounting. To say that non vegan diets are unhealthy is somewhat unfounded considering the [low quality of nutritional science](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rz-8H_i1wA) found today.
1.2.3.5.4. Con: A plant-based diet would make it nearly impossible for [sumo wrestlers](https://www.gq.com/story/sumo-diet-of-byamba-ulambayar) to reach a certain caloric intake.
1.2.3.5.4.1. Con: It's [rice and beer](https://www.lingualift.com/blog/what-sumo-eat-wrestlers-diet/) that allow sumo wrestlers to reach the caloric level. The [chankonabe](https://www.mashed.com/97657/eat-like-sumo-wrestler/) provides calories and protein, but is [mostly veggies and can be made vegan](https://www.fromthecomfortofmybowl.com/vegan-nabe-hot-pot/) \(tofu could be a protein source\).
1.2.3.5.5. Pro: Vegan diets provide more fibre, a nutrient that [97% of Americans are short on](https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/142/7/1390S/4630933).
1.2.3.5.5.1. Con: Nutrients like fibre can also be provided by non-vegan diets.
1.2.3.5.6. Pro: Through [isotopic analysis](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-did-gladiators-eat), researchers reveal that Roman gladiators had a predominately [plant-based diet](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266938104_Stable_Isotope_and_Trace_Element_Studies_on_Gladiators_and_Contemporary_Romans_from_Ephesus_Turkey_2nd_and_3rd_Ct_AD_-_Implications_for_Differences_in_Diet), enabling them to enhance their performance.
1.2.3.5.6.1. Pro: The reason for the thickened mineral bone density came from a [strontium-rich source of calcium](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141020090006.htm) the plant-based diets provided to the gladiators, of which [increases bone density/volume](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17002590/) to [decrease fracture risk](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15728210/) and [improves bone healing](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-009-1140-6?error=cookies_not_supported&code=87fd26b7-d094-4402-8f50-6d4d1bee18f4) \([stimulates bone formation](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11914-017-0406-8?error=cookies_not_supported&code=3e7a5457-b35e-4656-ad00-76fc749b78aa)\) too.
1.2.3.5.6.1.1. Con: Gladiator bones were strengthened by their [exercising](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266938104_Stable_Isotope_and_Trace_Element_Studies_on_Gladiators_and_Contemporary_Romans_from_Ephesus_Turkey_2nd_and_3rd_Ct_AD_-_Implications_for_Differences_in_Diet) and healed better, due to [better medical care](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-did-gladiators-eat) than average citizens. So the strontium benefits are confounded by these factors.
1.2.3.5.6.2. Pro: Despite the notion of meat's capability of "optimizing" physical performance, plant-based diets were [consumed by numerous, prosperous athletes](https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2019/11/the-game-changers-11-record-breaking-plant-based-athletes-601566/). Athletes including [Paavo Nurmi, Murray Rose, Edwin Moses](https://www.fasterwaytofatloss.com/blog/2019/12/20/how-going-vegan-could-be-a-game-changer) and [Carl Lewis](https://www.olympic.org/carl-lewis) were outperformers of their time, achieving a great number of medals consecutively. Carl Lewis, in fact, [claims](http://www.beegans.com/olympian-carl-lewis-vegan/) that the time [he switched to a vegan diet](https://www.kinderworld.org/videos/strength/carl-lewis-vegan-diet/), he started winning consecutively and he said to have peaked in his 30s as a result of his diet.
1.2.3.5.7. Con: A vegan diet may worsen [magnesium and vitamin A deficiencies](https://theconversation.com/vegan-diets-are-adding-to-malnutrition-in-wealthy-countries-107555) currently experienced by 1 in 4 US children.
1.2.3.6. Con: A restrictive diet like veganism has harmful long-term consequences.
1.2.3.6.1. Pro: Choosing to follow a restrictive diet can make it harder to engage with social events, as eating in restaurants is [more difficult](http://ohsheglows.com/2013/02/06/10-tips-for-eating-out-as-a-vegan/).
1.2.3.6.1.1. Pro: Sharing food is a [fundamental part](https://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/512998465/why-eating-the-same-food-increases-peoples-trust-and-cooperation) of human bonding, being vegan makes this [difficult](https://cadryskitchen.com/2015/04/23/vegan-party-etiquette/).
1.2.3.6.1.1.1. Con: The main claim is that all humans should become vegan, thus this claim is not valid. If all humans became vegan, then vegan food would be the food shared by people and it would again have the positive effects that this claim proposes.
1.2.3.6.1.1.2. Con: Vegan food is actually easier to share, because there is more abundance due to less resources needed to grow vegan food.
1.2.3.6.1.1.3. Con: Vegan food is meant to be shared, especially with fruit. Some fruit are so big \(like watermelon, jackfruit, and breadfruit\) that it would be extremely difficult for one person to eat it alone.
1.2.3.6.1.1.4. Con: A cornucopia \(a basket overflowing with fruit and vegetables\) is symbolic of a [plentiful harvest](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cornucopia). That [abundance](https://www.brighthubeducation.com/history-homework-help/126590-what-is-a-cornucopia/) historically gets shared around Thanksgiving, when everyone feasts well. [Turkeys](http://time.com/4120730/thanksgiving-turkey-history/) are only a later, American addition to Thanksgiving.
1.2.3.6.1.2. Con: Many restaurants, cafes etc. are widely expanding the variety and range of vegan foods that are available. Choosing a vegan dish when at a social event is becoming easier, and even if you have to bring your own or modify a dish, often the venue owners are quite open minded to the idea of expanding their menu to meet the needs of potential customers.
1.2.3.6.1.3. Con: If everyone was vegan then eating in social groups would no longer be problematic. Meat eaters expecting vegans to tolerate and participate in a death ritual is not equal to vegans expecting meat eaters to stop performing death rituals. No meat eater is harmed by having veganism forced upon them.
1.2.3.6.2. Pro: This type of diet may be hard to follow, and thus bad on the psyche \(such as guilt\) when veering from it.
1.2.3.6.2.1. Con: Yet, if the entire world would be vegan, this would not be an issue.
1.2.3.6.3. Con: Veganism is not restrictive in the sense that there is a lot of vegetal foods. Usually, [vegans tend to actually have a more diversified diet](http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/2138656446/does-going-vegan-increase-dietary-variety). This claim is uninformed.
1.2.3.6.4. Pro: [Dietary diversity](https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/133/11/3911S/4818042) is very important for people's nutritional health. Without any animal products \(to add greater choice of food\), vegans face serious barriers to achieving an adequately diverse diet.
1.2.3.6.4.1. Pro: There is [positive correlation](https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/134/10/2579/4688437) between diet diversity and Height for Age Z-scores \(HAZ\).
1.2.3.6.4.2. Con: The contribution in terms of more choices to nutrition may be indisputable, but that does not mean removing animals \(like with a vegan diet\) leaves a diet with inadequate nutrition.
1.2.3.6.4.3. Pro: Most people have preferences \(e.g. someone who won't eat broccoli\) based on taste, texture and other factors. These preferences naturally restrict our choices: making serious restrictions \(e.g. veganism\) beyond these only compounds the limiting of options.
1.2.3.6.5. Con: Restrictive diets in general are actually associated with helpful long-term consequences, as they're associated with longevity \(like [calorie restriction](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hunger-gains-extreme-calorie-restriction-diet-shows-anti-aging-results/)\), which veganism [displays](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600). It's usually the non-restrictive ones that lead to a shorter life \(for instance: [unlimited eating](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-finds-extreme-obesity-may-shorten-life-expectancy-14-years)\).
1.2.3.6.5.1. Pro: Many [longevity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies) and [disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study) studies conclude there's an increased risk of many 'old-age' diseases such as heart disease, dementia, cancer, diabetes, etc. with unrestricted food intake, as it would include animal products.
1.2.3.7. Pro: A vegan diet requires a lot less time to consume healthy and delicious food. The convenience would help more people to stick to a healthy diet.
1.2.3.7.1. Con: A vegan diet is far more inconvenient than an omnivorous diet.
1.2.3.7.1.1. Pro: 'Quick food' options, like fast food restaurants and convenience stores, have very few \(if any\) vegan choices. Most of a vegan's diet realistically must be made rather than bought. For people with particularly busy lifestyles, this inconvenience can be a deal-breaker.
1.2.3.7.1.2. Pro: The vegan diet ranks abysmally on the [top 40 most popular diets](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-easy-diets) when ranking by convenience, tying for 36th place. The vast majority of popular diets are far more convenient than veganism.
1.2.3.7.2. Pro: The [World Health Organisation](http://www.who.int/elena/titles/fruit_vegetables_ncds/en/) and national health ministries encourage adding more fruits and veggies to the plate and the vegan diet would allow for the greatest opportunity for that.
1.2.3.8. Con: A vegan diet lacks specific essential nutrients.
1.2.3.8.1. Pro: A number of essential vitamins are extremely difficult to obtain through a strictly vegan diet.
1.2.3.8.1.1. Con: Animal products can lack sufficient amounts of essential nutrients, such as [Vitamin C](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-animal-foods).
1.2.3.8.1.1.1. Con: Omnivores can eat any sources, so they do not worry about deficiencies from food limitations. Whatever they cannot get from animal sources, they can just get it from plants, like Vitamin C. However, a vegan diet is limited and does have to worry about deficiencies from the limitations. Vitamin B12 does not have an adequate substitute in vegan sources, because it is not [bioavailable](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3181/0703-MR-67), even with microbial food sources like algae.
1.2.3.8.1.1.2. Con: The negation of veganism is not a diet made exclusively of animal products, but a diet not excluding animal products. The fact that a diet consisting exclusively of animal products is not nutritionally adequate, bears no relevance in this discussion.
1.2.3.8.1.2. Pro: Vegan diets are at an increased risk of B12 deficiency among other vitamin deficiencies.
1.2.3.8.1.2.1. Con: B12 deficiency is not an issue for informed vegans. Recent [research](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26502280) results suggest that no significant vitamins or minerals deficiencies affect the vegan population compared to non vegans.
1.2.3.8.1.2.2. Pro: B12 deficiency alone [can lead to](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/vitamin-b12-deficiency-can-be-sneaky-harmful-201301105780) sensory neuropathy and possible permanent neurological damage if untreated. Vegan diets need to be carefully structured or supplemented with vitamins.
1.2.3.8.1.2.3. Pro: There is a [study that shows that low Vitamin B12 levels during pregnancy](http://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/alcoholism-clinical-and-experimental-research/avoiding-meat-during-pregnancy-linked-la) set up a worse life \(more prone to drugs\) for their progeny.
1.2.3.8.1.2.4. Con: Meat contains the essential vitamin [B12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12), yet this B12 is often [supplemented](http://www.theglowingfridge.com/vitamin-b12-not-just-vegans/) into the [animal's food](http://www.farmhealthonline.com/disease-management/cattle-diseases/cobalt-deficiency/). Therefore when supplementing B12 yourself and eating healthy, 'intermediary' meat' becomes obsolete.
1.2.3.8.1.2.5. Pro: Without taking synthetically produced goods it is impossible to obtain [sufficient Vitamin B12](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/219822.php) on a vegan diet. The human body cannot source B12 from the sources that herbivores utilise, including bacterial sources. Vitamin B12 is [synthesized](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-001-0902-7) from bacterial sources. It is a reasonably technological enterprise, with a moderate level of industrialisation required.
1.2.3.8.1.2.5.1. Con: A [bioavailable version](https://www.realsourcefoods.com/blogs/wellness/water-lentils-for-vitamin-b12) of Vitamin B12 \(the main vitamin that vegans supplement\) is found in one plant so far: [duckweed](https://www.newhope.com/vitamins-and-supplements/naturally-occurring-vitamin-b12-discovered-plant-based-protein).
1.2.3.8.1.2.5.2. Con: Asking a pre-industrial civilization to go vegan would be problematic, but as technology becomes available to more people to where everyone has access to it, this would not be a reason to avoid veganism then.
1.2.3.8.1.2.6. Pro: The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns about the risk of [vitamin B12 deficiencies](https://www.eatright.org/food/nutrition/vegetarian-and-special-diets/food-sources-of-important-nutrients-for-vegetarians) in vegans. While these can be safely gained from supplements, they are at greater risk.
1.2.3.8.1.2.7. Pro: Without adequate Vitamin B12 supplements on a vegan diet, people can get [pernicious anemia](https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/pernicious-anemia).
1.2.3.8.1.2.7.1. Con: Pernicious anemia could happen to those with [medical and genetic risk factors](https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/pernicious-anemia) \(vegans are only a small %\). They need to take Vitamin B12 shots, regardless of where the B12 comes from in the diet if their digestive system cannot absorb B12 anymore.
1.2.3.8.1.2.8. Con: Vitamin B12 deficiency takes [many years](https://www.b12-vitamin.com/symptoms/) to develop, due to recycling and storage in the liver. As most survival situations are much shorter than this, a plant-based diet is ample for survival way before any meat is needed.
1.2.3.8.1.2.9. Con: Vitamin B12 deficiencies are sometimes caused by [industrialization](https://www.b12-vitamin.com/vegan/). In nature, people do not need to take in as much B12, so it is less of an issue.
1.2.3.8.1.2.9.1. Con: Because of industrialization, it might be harder to get Vitamin B12 in nature than in the past. Survival without eating meat would be difficult if people are near resource-exploited or -depleted areas.
1.2.3.8.1.2.10. Con: As Vitamin B12 is found in [soil, especially with plant roots](http://news.mit.edu/2007/b12), people could get the vitamin by eating roots without washing them thoroughly.
1.2.3.8.1.2.11. Con: B12 deficiency is not a vegan issue. [The Framingham Offspring study](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/71/2/514/4729184) found that 39% of the general population may be in the low normal and deficient B12 blood level range, and it was not just vegetarians or older people. Most interestingly there was no difference between those ate meat and those who did not. The people with the highest B12 blood levels were those who were taking B12 supplements and eating B12 fortified cereals.
1.2.3.8.1.2.12. Con: [Vitamin B12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Synthesis_and_industrial_production) is naturally made by bacteria, not animals. For this reason, vegan B12 supplements can be produced easily and cheaply.
1.2.3.8.1.2.12.1. Pro: B12 is easy to supplement in various vitamin dense shakes and meals. Also, there exists pill in which a person can intake the essential amount of B12.
1.2.3.8.1.2.13. Con: B12 deficiency is not an issue in the vegan community, as B12 can be easily and efficiently [produced by bacteria](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00253-001-0902-7) in controlled laboratory conditions, B12 is cheap and available, and increasingly present in fortified products \(like vegetable milk\). Raising bacteria in lab cultures to produce B12 vitamins is as natural as raising cattle to produce milk and meat - but surely more efficient and environment friendly than industrial farms.
1.2.3.8.1.3. Pro: Vitamin D3 is [rarely found in plants](https://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Nutrition-A-Z/Vitamins/Vitamin-D--What-you-need-to-know.aspx) and will be inadequate in a vegan diet unless supplemented.
1.2.3.8.1.3.1. Con: All diets are poor in vitamin D3: " The paradox with ‘vitamin D’ is that diet per se is usually poor in vitamin D" \([Norman, 2001](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4642156/)\). "The most well-known source of vitamin D is via synthesis in the skin induced by sun exposure." [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4642156/)
1.2.3.8.1.3.2. Pro: D3 is inadequate in vegan diets, that is why meat is a good source of D3 \(the livestock gets its source from microbes that produce it\).
1.2.3.8.1.3.3. Con: There are multiple plant-based sources of Vitamin D3 \([pp. 15-16](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651966/pdf/fpls-04-00136.pdf)\).
1.2.3.8.1.3.3.1. Pro: [Vegan vitamin D3](https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/nutrients/vitamin-d) supplements are sourced from lichens. They are especially beneficial for vegans who stay too long indoors.
1.2.3.8.1.3.4. Con: People produce their own Vitamin D from the sun \([1](https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/cholesterol.php#utilization), [2](https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/vitamins.php#d), [3](http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Vitamin-D.html#figure1)\) and do not need supplementation with this method.
1.2.3.8.1.3.4.1. Pro: This source prevents overdosing on Vitamin D \(as seen in the third article\), as the body produces only what it needs.
1.2.3.8.1.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.5.7.
1.2.3.8.1.5. Con: Due to the antimicrobial treatment of livestock feed - preventing microbes from creating ingestible nutrients such as vitamin [B12](https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30) - animal products are less nutritious now than they have been previously.
1.2.3.8.1.5.1. Con: Farmed meat is not the only meat available. Free-range and hunted animals are still an option.
1.2.3.8.2. Con: In the same way that vegans need to be careful about getting the correct nutrients, non-vegan diets also need careful structuring to avoid health complications.
1.2.3.8.2.1. Con: -> See 1.2.3.4.2.
1.2.3.8.2.2. Pro: A balanced diet is not dependent on the inclusion or exclusion of animal products or other specific food groups, but on the nutrients it provides - carbs \(energy\), protein, minerals, vitamins and healthy fats. These can be obtained from plant or animal sources.
1.2.3.8.2.3. Pro: A vegan diet, if not well planned, does lack some nutrients, but the same can happen with a non-vegan diet too \(as well as too rich in cholesterol\). Basically, any diet, if taken lightly, can lack some nutrients, not vegan exclusively. Due to its non-exclusivity, lacking nutrients should not be a factor in deciding whether we all go vegan or not.
1.2.3.8.2.3.1. Con: Lacking nutrients is not binary. It is possible for a diet to be more likely to lack them, which at global scale might have a very measurable impact.
1.2.3.8.3. Pro: Iodine is [not consistently available](https://veganhealth.org/iodine/) from plant foods.
1.2.3.8.3.1. Con: A normal Western Diet often also lacks essential nutrients like [jodium](http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/service/vraag-en-antwoord/gezonde-voeding-en-voedingsstoffen/hoe-krijg-ik-voldoende-jodium-binnen-.aspx) \(iodine\).
1.2.3.8.3.2. Pro: A study of [Boston-area vegetarians and vegans](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21613354/) found that U.S. vegans may be at risk for low iodine intake.
1.2.3.8.3.3. Pro: A study of [London-area vegans](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/iodine-intake-and-iodine-deficiency-in-vegans-as-assessed-by-the-duplicateportion-technique-and-urinary-iodine-excretion/546E13105E5CFF1D9A01C116658B09C4) found the probability of iodine deficiency disorder was moderate to severe among vegans who were not consuming seaweed.
1.2.3.8.3.4. Con: Table salt is [iodized in many countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodised_salt) because iodine deficiency is recognized as a public health concern among many people, not just vegans.
1.2.3.8.3.5. Pro: Dairy is a consistent source of iodine, partly because dairy cattle [are given iodine feed supplements](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iodine-HealthProfessional/) and iodine solutions are used to clean the teats of milking cows.
1.2.3.8.3.6. Con: Iodine is available in supplements, such as the [VEG 1](https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/nutrients/veg-1-frequently-asked-questions-faqs) multivitamin sold by The Vegan Society UK.
1.2.3.8.3.7. Con: In countries like the Netherlands iodine shortage in all food is simply solved by supplementing bread. This could also be done to other countries and with other food types [\(Voedingscentrum: Iodine Netherlands\)](http://\(http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/encyclopedie/jodium.aspx\)).
1.2.3.8.3.8. Con: High amounts of Iodine are naturally present in seaweed, which can be [cultivated](https://www.wur.nl/en/article/Sustainable-seaweed-cultivation.htm) in nearly every country with a coastline. Seaweed could simultaneously a provide a good source of protein for large populations.
1.2.3.8.4. Con: Many expert organizations agree that a vegan diet can be as healthy as an omnivorous diet.
1.2.3.8.4.1. Pro: A [properly planned vegan diet](https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/) is considered to be [healthy and nutritionally complete](https://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx) by many dietary \([1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704), [2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028)\) and medical \([1](https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/plant-based-diets), [2](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eat-more-plants-fewer-animals-2018112915198), [3](https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/discover-health/health-benefits-vegan-diet)\) entities.
1.2.3.8.4.2. Pro: According to [the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics \(AND\)](http://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx), "\[vegetarian/vegan\] diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."
1.2.3.8.4.2.1. Con: That same document \(which is [disputed](https://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/16/inaccuracies-and-omissions-force-nutrition-society-to-pulls-its-position-statement-on-vegetarian-diets/) within the scientific community\) also claims that vegans will often have to use supplements, and does not deny how sickness is more frequent in them.
1.2.3.8.4.2.1.1. Con: The [article](https://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/16/inaccuracies-and-omissions-force-nutrition-society-to-pulls-its-position-statement-on-vegetarian-diets/) also does not say that sickness is more frequent in vegans. Raising bacteria in labs to produce B12 vitamin or algae to produce Omega 3 is as natural as raising cows in industrial farms to produce milk and meat, or raise olive trees to produce olive oil; as for the claim that intakes make a healthy diet more costly, it is unfounded. Finally, any healthy diets require planning.
1.2.3.8.4.2.2. Con: A vegan diet might provide all essential nutrients when well planned, but requiring all humans to go vegan \(as the top-level claim states\) will include people who are unable \(skillwise or timewise or from simple forgetfulness and lack of priority\) to plan all meals well. These people will experience malnutrition.
1.2.3.8.4.2.2.1. Con: This is just a conjecture.  The opposite scenario is at least as probable: if everybody were vegan, information about healthy 100% plant based diets would be more widespread and even available in schools; vegans would be at least as healthy and informed as they are now. Furthermore, research suggests that lack of vitamins and minerals is not more common among vegans than in non vegans, see for example [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26502280)
1.2.3.8.4.3. Con: An omnivorous diet in and of itself is not necessarily an optimal one. Comparing the health of the vegan diet to the unhealthy \(on average\) omnivore one means that the vegan diet, at most, will not be that healthy if followed.
1.2.3.8.5. Pro: Getting enough protein on a vegan diet can be challenging.
1.2.3.8.5.1. Con: Contrary to popular belief, [any legume](https://vegetarianism.stackexchange.com/a/1404/1236) can completely satisfy human amino acid requirements, either eaten alone or with other whole plant foods. The necessity of protein combining is a myth.
1.2.3.8.5.2. Con: Even in developing countries and for all ages, sources of protein and amino acids and their protein quantity are [shown](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10466163) not to be an issue.
1.2.3.8.5.3. Pro: Some people worry about the health issues associated with high levels of [metals](http://www.veganmuscleandfitness.com/are-plant-based-protein-powders-contaminated-with-heavy-metals/) in plant-based protein powders.
1.2.3.8.5.4. Con: Plant-based proteins are actually higher-quality than animal-based, because their [lower phosphorus levels](http://www.ijkd.org/index.php/ijkd/article/viewFile/345/176) are healthier for the body than higher levels.
1.2.3.8.5.5. Con: The difficulty of an action is never an ethical justification. It may have been "challenging" for societies to free their slaves, however, we know that it is still the ethical thing to do.
1.2.3.8.5.6. Pro: Animals provide a [complete protein source](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322827#plant-vs-animal-protein), whereas most vegan foods [do not](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322827#plant-vs-animal-protein).
1.2.3.8.5.6.1. Con: Some vegan foods, like [quinoa](http://www.theveganrd.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fodmap-handouts-1.pdf), are a [complete protein](https://www.livestrong.com/article/378479-is-quinoa-a-complete-protein-food/) source and can be eaten in replace of animal products to get an equal nutrient exchange.
1.2.3.8.5.6.2. Con: People do not need to eat a complete amino acid profile [for every meal](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/196279). So even if it's not high quality, as long as it's a balance at the end of the day, the intake will be adequate.
1.2.3.8.5.6.3. Con: Most vegan food is low in some essential amino acids, but not completely devoid of them. So if consumed at a high enough volume, they [would become a complete protein source](https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/myth-complete-protein.html).
1.2.3.8.5.7. Pro: The absorption of proteins from vegan sources are lower than from animal sources.
1.2.3.8.5.7.1. Pro: For example the [digestibility](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905294/) \(PDCAAS\) of whey is 100%, whereas the digestibility of black beans is 75%.
1.2.3.8.5.7.1.1. Con: Vegans just eat more protein to compensate for the lack of absorption. At the end of the day, following and compensating with the percentages, vegans can absorb the same amount of protein as non-vegans. For instance, if the absorption is 25% less than a non-vegan food, then someone needs to eat 25% more of the protein to compensate.
1.2.3.8.5.7.2. Pro: The protein-rich vegan foods also contain fibres and anti-nutrients like lectins that [lower](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905294/) the absorption \(i.e. bioavailability \(BV\)\) of the amino acids.
1.2.3.8.5.7.2.1. Con: Anti-nutrients in plants are actually healthy for the body when they lower absorption of proteins, as [lower phosphorus levels](http://www.ijkd.org/index.php/ijkd/article/viewFile/345/176) help keep kidneys healthy.
1.2.3.8.5.7.2.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.6.1.1.1.
1.2.3.8.6. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.6.
1.2.3.8.7. Con: Some [professional athletes](http://www.greatveganathletes.com/) have shown that it is possible to adopt a vegan diet without sacrificing their athletic abilities or taking too many dietary supplements.
1.2.3.8.7.1. Pro: Matt Frazier is an endurance runner who has successfully completed ultramarathons. He does take [supplements](https://www.nomeatathlete.com/supplements/) for Vitamin B12, trace minerals, and EPA/DHA.
1.2.3.8.7.2. Pro: [Nancy Clark](http://www.nancyclarkrd.com/), a professional nutritionist, argues that vegan athletes don't always require [supplements](https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/can-athletes-perform-well-on-a-vegan-diet/), so long as they adopt a strict training habits.
1.2.3.8.7.3. Con: If a vegan athlete is successful, this does not mean that their dietary limitations haven't diminished their athletic abilities to some extent.
1.2.3.8.7.4. Con: Taking supplements indicates there is something missing from the diet and therefore, it is not optimal.
1.2.3.8.7.4.1. Con: Optimality is not relevant: a vegan diet does not need to be optimal if supplements can fill the nutritional gap.
1.2.3.8.8. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.4.4.1.
1.2.3.8.9. Pro: Vegans are more [deficient](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/2/327/4862944) than meat-eaters in the omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Supplements for these nutrients are usually animal-derived \(the omega 3 fatty acid is found in fish\).
1.2.3.8.9.1. Con: [Walnuts](http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3138/2), [Chia](http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3061/2) seeds and [flaxseeds](http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3163/2) are are plant sources that are very high in Omega-3. Omega-3 is also present in most vegetables in varying amounts, some good sources are listed [here](https://plenteousveg.com/vegan-sources-omega-3/). And if you want to take a vegan DHA supplement then there are algae derived [options](https://plenteousveg.com/vegan-vitamins/#omega3).
1.2.3.8.9.2. Con: The Omega-3 acids EPA and DHA are found in [algae](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/). This is where fish get theirs. We can eat algae extract which is widely available in pill form.
1.2.3.8.9.3. Con: Our bodies are able to produce Vitamin D when exposed to the sun. "Vitamin" D is a hormone, not really a vitamin. It's [produced by the kidneys.](https://www.kidney.org/news/kidneyCare/spring10/VitaminD) Making this technically yet another cruelty-free source of "vitamin" D3.
1.2.3.8.10. Con: Every single essential nutrient can be obtained by a vegan diet. It's just that some are only available in a few food sources.
1.2.3.8.10.1. Con: -> See 1.2.3.4.4.4.1.1.
1.2.3.8.10.2. Pro: Vitamin K2, found in soy-based [natto](https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-k/), but also inconsistently in fermented foods like [saurkraut, tempeh, and kombucha](https://nutritionstudies.org/6-facts-vitamin-k-plant-based-diet/).
1.2.3.8.10.3. Pro: What cannot come from animal products \(due to a vegan diet\) nor vegan supplements \(due to the nutrients missing in the vegan diet\) can be made within the body. [Cholesterol](https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cholesterol) and [collagen](https://thedermreview.com/collagen-supplements/) are examples.
1.2.3.8.10.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.8.1.2.5.1.
1.2.3.8.10.5. Pro: Calcium is hard to come by, available naturally the most in [poppy seeds](https://www.livekindly.co/vegan-foods-highest-in-calcium/) \(but smaller amounts in figs, sesame seeds, greens, and some legumes like chickpeas\).
1.2.3.8.10.6. Pro: Outside of aquatic [algae, seaweed, and spirulina](https://sunwarrior.com/blogs/health-hub/vegan-dha-omega-3-sources), there aren't many other sources of DHA omega-3.
1.2.3.8.11. Con: What can be low can be compensated by just eating more food until the recommended amount is reached.
1.2.3.8.12. Con: Most of these 'essential' nutrients not found in foods are converted in the body from vegan [precursors](https://healthfully.com/301855-nutrients-that-are-precursors-to-vitamins.html) \(except for those that can't - genetically, etc.\), so this isn't an issue.
1.2.3.8.12.1. Pro: It's easier, as the body makes the nutrients itself \(Creatine, Carnosine, Taurine, etc\) instead of actively trying to find the foods with it and adding them into the diet.
1.2.3.8.12.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.8.10.3.
1.2.3.8.12.3. Con: -> See 1.2.3.4.4.4.
1.2.3.8.12.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.8.9.3.
1.2.3.8.12.5. Pro: EPA and DHA omega 3 fatty acids could be created from converting plant-based [ALA and SDA](https://livinginnaturalharmony.com/blog/2018/01/12/omega-3-conversion-ala-epa-dha/) in the body, albeit at a [slow rate](http://www.dhaomega3.org/Overview/Conversion-Efficiency-of-ALA-to-DHA-in-Humans).
1.2.3.8.12.5.1. Con: -> See 1.2.3.8.9.2.
1.2.3.8.12.5.2. Con: Not all persons can adequately [convert ALA](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/) \(plant sourced Omega-3\) to EPA or DHA \(animal sourced Omega-3s\).
1.2.3.8.12.5.2.1. Pro: DHA fatty acid deficiencies have [significant](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/) health and behavior risks.
1.2.3.8.12.6. Pro: People can convert plant-based [K1 into K2](https://nutritionstudies.org/6-facts-vitamin-k-plant-based-diet/) via gut bacteria.
1.2.3.8.12.6.1. Con: Vitamin K2 would be difficult to come by for people if they don't have the right gut bacteria in them to produce it.
1.2.3.8.12.7. Con: People can end up missing out on the correct nutritional amounts when they compare their synthesizing ability to others.
1.2.3.8.12.7.1. Con: People can find out what their body is capable of through testing, so they would use that as an indicator to avoid that issue.
1.2.3.8.12.7.1.1. Con: Testing may not be a viable option for most people, being expensive and can be deemed an "unnecessary" medical expense \(because it's not treating a health condition\).
1.2.3.8.12.8. Con: Vegan diets would be incompatible with aging populations and individuals.
1.2.3.8.12.8.1. Con: Aging produces a range of changes in the body that make micronutrient \(i.e. vitamins/minerals\) needs increase, but calorie intake decrease. Since vegan foods tend to be more nutrient dense, they'll actually work better for an aging body than animal products.
1.2.3.8.12.8.2. Pro: As we age, our body finds it harder to [synthesize](https://www.drweil.com/vitamins-supplements-herbs/vitamins/do-seniors-need-special-vitamins/) and [absorb](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/nutritional-needs-and-aging#section1) nutrients. Since vegan foods tend to have a lower bio-availability than animal products \(like protein\) and rely on individuals to produce what they don't take in \(like DHA omega 3\), older people may not get the nutrition that they need and be worse off than if they consume animals.
1.2.3.8.12.8.3. Pro: Worldwide aging populations \(due to Baby Boomers, longer lifespans, etc.\) combined with incompatible diets to elderly bodies could lead to a worldwide public health crisis.
1.2.3.8.12.8.3.1. Pro: Youth and society are already struggling to [handle aging populations](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/05/02/two-solutions-to-the-challenges-of-population-aging/) and will do so even more in the future. Adding onto that a public health issue that's preventable would only make matters worse than they already are.
1.2.3.8.12.8.4. Pro: As a demographic, many elderly people already struggle with [health complications](https://www.asccare.com/health-concerns-for-seniors/). Malnutrition, if formed, could only make it worse or add onto what they already have.
1.2.3.8.12.8.4.1. Pro: These health complications are already expensive to treat, so malnutrition on top of that could be unaffordable. This could lead to individuals untreated and potentially affected severely or permanently by it.
1.2.3.8.13. Con: Plant based food contains more antioxidants, in fact [64 times more on average](https://www.superfoodly.com/is-meat-bad-for-you-antioxidants-in-meat-vs-vegetables/).
1.2.3.8.14. Con: Essential nutrients can be supplemented.
1.2.3.8.14.1. Con: Supplements cost money, which may not be affordable to the less privileged.
1.2.3.8.14.1.1. Con: The [money saved from healthcare expenses/loss of life](http://time.com/4266874/vegetarian-diet-climate-change/) could go towards paying for supplements.
1.2.3.8.14.1.1.1. Pro: Healthcare costs the US almost [$3.5 trillion](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2018/042.pdf) with [85%](https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878) of that going to preventable chronic diseases like heart disease and type 2 diabetes. The savings \(about $3 trillion\) would be more than enough to transition the world to a vegan diet.
1.2.3.8.14.1.1.1.1. Con: If vegans live longer, this could cause healthcare costs to rise. Therefore, it would just be a prolonged zero-sum game.
1.2.3.8.14.1.2. Con: Most people pay for supplements anyway when eating meat, so this should not be an issue.
1.2.3.8.14.1.3. Con: Since meat is [generally more expensive](https://plenteousveg.com/cost-vegan-protein-vs-animal-protein/) than vegan food \(outside of processing\), the savings could be transferred towards buying supplements.
1.2.3.8.14.1.3.1. Pro: Savings could be even greater without cooking, as vegan foods can be eaten raw, whereas meat needs to be cooked \(outside of rare instances like pre-cooked meat, jerky, and meat just taken out of an animal\). The savings come from no cookware, fuel to cook with, or safety issues from mistakes.
1.2.3.8.14.1.4. Con: Vegans might not need too many supplements if they eat a nutritious diet.
1.2.3.8.14.1.5. Con: If people eat cheaper vegan food, then they can budget their money towards supplements.
1.2.3.8.14.1.6. Con: Vegan foods and supplements will get cheaper with more people buying them, so this will not be an issue.
1.2.3.8.14.1.7. Pro: Supplements cost money and without being able to pay for them, vegans could run into costly health issues
1.2.3.8.14.1.8. Pro: Supplements require educating the public about what to use. If this is not provided in school, then only the more privileged can afford to educate themselves on what supplements to buy instead of experimenting \(which is costly\).
1.2.3.8.14.2. Con: Supplements are unnatural.
1.2.3.8.14.2.1. Con: Unnatural is needed, as humans created and live in an unnatural world that necessitates unnatural behaviors
1.2.3.8.14.2.2. Con: Just because they are unnatural does not make them bad or not necessary.
1.2.3.8.14.2.2.1. Pro: The world population is growing, meaning we need to create new methods, possibly unnatural ones, to sustain our unnatural levels \(as we are the only top predator on Earth\). Supplements may not be natural, but are necessary to keep our growth momentum going.
1.2.3.8.14.2.3. Con: Pretty much any diet these days is unnatural, due to living in a post-agricultural revolutionary era
1.2.3.8.14.2.4. Pro: Acknowledging that nutrient supplements are readily available for vegans, raises the point that they are merely supplements and not completely authentic substitutes for natural sources of nutrients.
1.2.3.8.14.2.4.1. Pro: Some pills make uptake of supplement nutrients more difficult than getting it from food sources.
1.2.3.8.14.2.4.2. Con: Some supplements are a better source of a nutrient \(due to a higher bioavailability or correct balance of nutrients\), so it is better to supplement, no matter what diet a person's on.
1.2.3.8.14.2.4.3. Con: People are not always able to balance their food intake to make sure they get enough of everything and take a multivitamin because of that, regardless of diet.
1.2.3.8.14.2.5. Con: Some supplements are better than natural sources, because they are not attached to food, as with [B12](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/).
1.2.3.8.14.2.6. Con: Salt is supplemented with iodine in some countries by law, yet no one is complaining about it being unnatural.
1.2.3.8.14.2.6.1. Con: Just because something is ignored doesn't mean that it isn't relevant.
1.2.3.8.14.3. Con: A diet requiring supplementation is not a complete and healthy diet.
1.2.3.8.14.3.1. Con: If people are taking supplements, they're more aware/proactive of their deficiencies and resolve them. It's less healthy to have diets that aren't supplemented where the nutritional profile changes or has deficiencies that aren't supplemented for out of a lack of awareness or unwillingness to fix them.
1.2.3.8.14.3.2. Pro: Omnivores do not have the struggle to supplement their diet everyday. People will not want to have this extra step/hardship when they go vegan, just to survive/thrive on it.
1.2.3.8.14.3.3. Pro: The nutrients of supplements may not be absorbed during digestion as effectively as those in whole foods.
1.2.3.8.14.3.4. Con: If adequate and correct supplementation can '[fill in the gaps](https://www.newhope.com/health-conditions/registered-dieticians-identify-diet-gaps-and-how-handle-them)' of a [limited or incomplete, yet already healthy and varied diet](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/supplements/art-20044894), then it can be considered complete and therefore [healthy](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4109789/).
1.2.3.8.14.3.4.1. Pro: Supplementation is also healthier for individuals with [conditions](https://www.vnsny.org/article/supplements-vs-healthy-diets-better/) than their regular dietary intake.
1.2.3.8.14.4. Pro: Modern society provides the means to supplement these nutrients via cruelty-free production methods based on lab-bred bacteria.
1.2.3.8.14.4.1. Pro: The vitamins that vegans miss \(Vitamin B12, D3, and K2, plus DHA\) but is in meat are actually vegan themselves \(produced by microbes\). Animals just do the work for us by absorb these vitamins into their flesh \(that becomes meat later on\) from the microbes instead of us. Thus, it is not the vegan diet that lacks vitamins and need supplements, but vegans that make poor \(i.e. microbe-deficient\) food choices on the diet \(omnivores have less of this worry\).
1.2.3.8.14.4.1.1. Pro: Vegans can take in the microbes \(that produce these missing nutrients\) to stay in the gut, so that they [produce them there](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144392/#vitamins).
1.2.3.8.14.4.1.1.1. Pro: Then, they would not worry about deficiencies or finding the right foods anymore, just like omnivores. Whatever's missing will already be in the vegans' bodies, regardless of what they eat.
1.2.3.8.14.4.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.8.1.3.3.
1.2.3.8.14.4.3. Con: Robust scientific evidence based research is virtually non-existent to prove that these alternatives and supplements can be correctly absorbed by the human body and what effect do they have on people using them in the short and long term. There is a huge difference between in-vitro testing, long term scientific studies, and reality.
1.2.3.8.14.4.3.1. Con: Science has identified the exact chemicals vitamins and minerals are made of, and many of them can be synthesized in a lab. They are thus chemically identical to their naturally-occuring counterparts.
1.2.3.8.14.4.3.2. Con: Supplementation to combat common nutritional deficiencies \(which are by far not exclusive to vegans\) has long been a standard practice in medicine and even food science \(for example, iodized table salt has greatly reduced iodine deficiency\). There is no reason to believe that supplementation is not an effective treatment for deficiencies.
1.2.3.8.14.4.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.8.1.2.12.
1.2.3.8.14.5. Pro: A vegan diet contains pretty much all of the nutrients required, the small few \(if not already provided\) can be easily supplemented.
1.2.3.8.14.5.1. Pro: This is a positive, as the nutrition from animal origins that cannot be supplemented on a vegan diet, is not healthy anyway. [Cholesterol](https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cholesterol) is one of those nutrients.
1.2.3.8.14.6. Con: Supplements are not available in all countries and not accessible to all humans.
1.2.3.8.14.7. Pro: It is better to lack nutrients and be able to supplement them than place dangerous ones in the body and try to remove them before it is too late to.
1.2.3.8.14.8. Con: Some people have mental health issues based around food. It is wrong to require such people to micromanage their nutrient intake, as opposed to just having a balanced diet.
1.2.3.8.14.9. Con: Supplements could allow the whole of the human race to be at ransom of the companies that make them.
1.2.3.8.14.9.1. Con: That already happens in omnivore societies, even without the entire population seeking medical treatment \(see the opioid epidemic\), so we're just switching one pill for another. The difference is that what's replaced is healthier: substituting treatment for prevention.
1.2.3.8.14.9.2. Pro: Vitamin B12 is required to stay alive on a vegan diet, so companies can increase their prices to unreasonable levels \(as with [life-saving pharmaceuticals](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epipen-price-hike-controversy-mylan-ceo-heather-bresch-speaks-out/)\), because people are forced to buy them to live.
1.2.3.8.14.9.2.1. Con: There are other sources, like [fermented plants and certain algae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Bacteria_and_archaea) too.
1.2.3.8.14.9.3. Con: Humans tend to [find a way to innovate](https://reason.com/2016/01/12/humans-innovate-their-way-out-of-scarcit/) when given an [extreme](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/apr/01/vegans-are-coming-millennials-health-climate-change-animal-welfare) challenge, of which this is [one of them](https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/the-challenge-of-going-vegan/).
1.2.3.8.14.9.3.1. Pro: Likely supplements may one day be added to tap water, be grown at home, etc. So likely people will innovate out of being held ransom, especially if they don't want to be.
1.2.3.8.14.9.3.2. Con: In certain countries, the cost of innovating is too high to make veganism possible there.
1.2.3.8.14.9.3.2.1. Pro: To make the vegan diet healthy is even more expensive. The lack of sanitation and supplies \(like refrigerators\) only drives up the cost.
1.2.3.8.14.9.4. Con: Not every company is going to deliberately hold people for ransom. When an instance like this takes place, there may be companies that fight against it by selling their own low-priced versions and alternatives to provide more choice versions of the scarce resource.
1.2.3.8.14.9.5. Pro: Like [Big Pharma](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drug-prices-oxycontin-predaxa-purdue-pharmaceuticals-boehringer-ingelheim/), there may will be companies that will keep prices up and sourcing difficult through cornering the market to monopolize a product, along with [heavy lobbying](https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/health/phrma-lobbying-costs-bn/index.html).
1.2.3.9. Pro: The way meat is produced [spreads disease](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment).
1.2.3.9.1. Pro: Vegans are less likely to come into contact with foodborne illnesses like [pathogenic E. Coli](https://stopfoodborneillness.org/pathogen/escherichia-coli-e-coli/), often found in animal products.
1.2.3.9.2. Con: This is a problem no matter the crop - plant based agriculture creates the same problems for pest resistance in the form of insects, weeds and moulds.
1.2.3.9.2.1. Con: While this may be true the resistance occurs in organisms which are not a direct threat to humans, whereas animal pathogens can [jump to](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis) humans carrying with them their resistances.
1.2.3.9.3. Pro: Livestock cause over half of all deaths from food-borne illnesses \(see [Table 3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3647642/)\).
1.2.3.9.4. Pro: Communicable, contagious diseases that are associated with produce \(like leafy greens and fruit\) come from [animal sources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114507/), so there's a reduction in contamination from vegan foods when animal products are eliminated too to prevent secondary sources from infecting and transmitting between humans too to cause issues for the health of populations.
1.2.3.9.4.1. Pro: Even food-borne illnesses in crops come from livestock through [water](https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/other/agricultural/contamination.html) and [soil](http://www.backwoodshome.com/prevent-foodborne-illness-with-safe-gardening-methods-by-donna-insco/) contamination.
1.2.3.9.4.2. Pro: The spread of disease in animals is more likely to [pass to humans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis) than [disease in plant crops](https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/disease/plant-disease-transmission.htm) due to genetic and biochemical similarities.
1.2.3.10. Con: It is possible to eat a healthy diet that includes meat and animal products.
1.2.3.10.1. Pro: Consuming animal products is healthy.
1.2.3.10.1.1. Con: It's [not obvious](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201610/do-humans-need-meat) that there's anything specifically beneficial about eating meat, and a healthy person with modest financial resources in an industrialized country can easily meet all normal dietary requirements on a vegan diet.
1.2.3.10.1.2. Con: -> See 1.2.3.8.1.2.4.
1.2.3.10.1.3. Pro: Animal products have [benefits](http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/meat-food-group-body-4118.html) for [appetite](https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060904/full/news060904-3.html), [metabolism](https://www.medicaldaily.com/3-benefits-eating-meat-234798), iron absorption and the health of your muscles. While you may find these in vegetables it doesn't change that they can be gained from a healthy meat diet. Just because vegetables are healthy doesn't mean meat isn't.
1.2.3.10.1.3.1. Pro: A diet that fits the human metabolism is guaranteed to provide all the nutrients we need.
1.2.3.10.1.4. Con: As vegans tend to [make healthier lifestyle choices](https://qz.com/91123/vegetarians-live-longer-but-its-not-because-they-dont-eat-meat/), consuming animal products should be less healthy than going vegan by association alone.
1.2.3.10.1.5. Con: WHO \(World Health Organisation\) deems processed meat [carcinogenic](http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/) and red meat a probable carcinogen.
1.2.3.10.1.6. Pro: Meat is an excellent source of iron [\(Pereira & Vicente, 2013\)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174012003385), while milk-based products are an excellent source of calcium and fatty acids \([Pereira, 2014](https://www.lbs.co.il/data/attachment-files/2015/08/26529_milk.pdf)\).
1.2.3.10.2. Con: A healthy diet can include some amount of animal products such as fish and eggs. However, many [cardiologists claim the benefits of eating meat \(especially red meat\) are smaller than the risks](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/is-red-meat-bad-for-your-heart-or-not/).
1.2.3.10.3. Con: While diets that include meat and animal products may be healthy, often their "healthiness" comes from reducing animal products.
1.2.3.10.3.1. Pro: Animal-based diets only appear healthy in the short term, until the long-term consequences are seen: compromise \(taking medications, surgery, etc.\) and shortened lifespan \(heart disease is the #1 killer, the living represents the whole population when it's not a 'complete picture', etc.\).
1.2.3.10.3.2. Pro: It's no wonder that study of [blue zones](https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/) shows that plant-based \(or very near it\) is the healthy way to go.
1.2.3.10.4. Pro: Each year, health experts rank the [40 most popular diets](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-diets-overall) to determine which are the best overall. Veganism ties with two others for 19th. When the list is adjusted to focus exclusively on the healthiest diets without regard to other factors, veganism does [even worse](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-healthy-eating-diets), tying for 27th. Out of the 40 most popular diets, it is clear that veganism is one of the least healthy choices.
1.2.3.10.4.1. Pro: The two diets tied for first place in both the rankings of [healthiest](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-healthy-eating-diets) and [best overall](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-diets-overall), the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet, both require the consumption of meat and animal products, particularly fish, eggs, and fat-free dairy. Veganism's ranking is abysmal on both scales, indicating that animal products are necessary for the healthiest diets.
1.2.3.10.4.2. Con: The article referenced shows a low score for accessibility which drags the overall score down. However, as more people choose veganism the industry will respond to increased demand by offering more vegan-friendly offerings therefore increasing the overall dietary score.
1.2.3.10.5. Con: If that were true, then the top killer wouldn't be animal-based \(heart disease\), but it is. It can't be healthy and the top killer simultaneously, as that's a contradiction. So it can't be healthy to eat animal products.
1.2.3.11. Con: It is possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet.
1.2.3.11.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.2.4.1.
1.2.3.11.2. Pro: People can still eat junk food and be unhealthy, as many junk foods are vegan \(fries, condiments, soda, candy...\). The world going vegan does not stop people's consumption of junk food and its negative health consequences too.
1.2.3.11.2.1. Pro: Many vegan alternatives have [higher amounts of sodium](https://www.longevitylive.com/1-aging/not-all-meat-substitutes-healthy/) to compensate for the lack of taste.
1.2.3.11.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.6.1.1.1.1.
1.2.3.11.2.3. Pro: Increasingly, multinational corporations and industrialised food giants are taking advantage of the [current boom in veganism](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44488051) by producing [more](https://www.vegansociety.com/news/media/statistics#businessfoodsales) plant-based processed foods.
1.2.3.11.2.4. Con: While people will always be unhealthy, we should still try and limit foods we know cause preventable health issues when we can to limit the harm that we can avoid.
1.2.3.11.3. Pro: While there is nutrition of all forms available to the vegan, bioavailability and difficulty in acquisition/cost is much greater, reducing the probability of a successful healthful vegan diet.
1.2.3.11.3.1. Con: Cost is dependent also on demand. This argument thus relies on the fact that most people are not vegan to justify non-veganism. This argument therefore includes an appeal to the [bandwagon fallacy](https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-bandwagon-fallacy-1689158).
1.2.3.11.3.2. Pro: In the United States, fruits and vegetables are [more expensive than meat](https://depts.washington.edu/uwcphn/news/presentations/Drewnowski%20cost%20of%20healthy%20foods%20051612%20\[Compatibility%20Mode\].pdf) when considered [isocalorically](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/isocaloric).
1.2.3.11.3.3. Con: -> See 1.2.3.8.12.1.
1.2.3.11.3.4. Con: The absorption of some nutrients, like [calcium](https://www.theveganrd.com/vegan-nutrition-101/vegan-nutrition-primers/protecting-bone-health-on-a-vegan-diet/), is better than milk for some vegan foods.
1.2.3.11.3.4.1. Pro: Vegan foods have [Vitamin C](https://www.livestrong.com/article/445365-can-vitamin-c-calcium-be-taken-together/), which helps out even more with absorption.
1.2.3.12. Con: In terms of their evolutionary adaptations, humans have adapted to gain their optimal nutritional profile from an omnivorous diet.
1.2.3.12.1. Pro: Our [teeth](https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/12/23/how-humans-evolved-to-be-natural-omnivores/)(The best evidence is our teeth: we have biting/tearing/ripping incisors and canines \(like carnivores\) and chewing molars \(like herbivores\). Animals with such diverse teeth tend to be omnivores.) are similar to other omnivores. Human teeth are similar to pig teeth, for example, and very different from both herbivore and carnivore teeth. Humans and pigs both [have](https://www.quora.com/What-type-of-teeth-do-omnivores-have) incisors, canines, and \(bunodont\) molars. Herbivore [molars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_\(tooth\)) are usually a lot less rounded, and full of ridges for grinding plants. Carnivores have sharp teeth that work together like scissors to cut meat.
1.2.3.12.2. Con: A human's digestive tract is most similar to that of [monkeys and apes](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320047#So,-are-we-carnivores?), whose diets consist primarily \(although not exclusively\) of plant sources.
1.2.3.12.3. Con: In spite of evolutionary changes, there are still many humans who are not able to [process lactose](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/539wy5/it-took-humans-5000-years-to-evolve-the-capability-to-digest-dairy), suggesting that we may not be well adapted to consuming dairy produce.
1.2.3.12.4. Pro: We have [powerful livers](https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/12/23/how-humans-evolved-to-be-natural-omnivores/)(Interestingly, we have very powerful livers \(the detoxification organ\) and a very strong ability to smell rot/decay/decomposition relative to other animals. This suggests we may have evolved as scavengers, eating dead \(but not too decayed\) carcasses killed by other animals.) to detoxify the body. Combined with the that fact we are very attuned to smell rot/decay/decomposition, this suggests we have the biological mechanisms of scavengers.
1.2.3.12.5. Pro: The structure of our jaws is conducive to an omnivorous diet.
1.2.3.12.5.1. Con: The forward-backward and side-to-side [range of motion of the human jaw](https://viva.org.uk/health/what-is-our-natural-diet-are-humans-evolutionarily-adapted-to-eat-animals-plants-or-both/)(Our jaws can open and close as well as move forwards, backwards and side-to-side. This is ideal for biting off pieces of plant matter and then grinding them down with our flat molars. In contrast, carnivores’ lower jaws have very limited side-to-side motion. They are fixed only to open and close, which adds strength and stability to their powerful bite.) indicates that we are better-suited to herbivorous diets, grinding rather than tearing food.
1.2.3.12.5.1.1. Con: The comparison to carnivores with a "fixed open and close" motion helpful for a "strong, stable bite" forgets that humans did not kill their prey using their teeth, and had tools and cooking methods that minimised the need to tear at flesh.
1.2.3.12.5.2. Con: The human body is adapted for a herbivorous diet \([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wG3b3ql34A), [2](http://meatyourfuture.com/2015/09/herbivores-carnivores/), [3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmXynDLkbXY)\): teeth, jaw movability, digestive colon and saliva properties.
1.2.3.12.5.2.1. Con: Herbivorous gastrointestinal tracts are either [multi-chambered](http://slideplayer.com/slide/4687656/), or have a comparatively [large cecum](https://oercommons.s3.amazonaws.com/media/courseware/openstax/m44736/Figure_34_01_05ab.jpg). The human digestive system is single-chambered with a small cecum, thus more closely resembles that of [omnivores](https://blackbearsofnorthamerica.weebly.com/anatomy.html).
1.2.3.12.5.2.2. Con: Apes \(which humans evolved from\) all are mostly plant-based with some animal supplementation. This makes them omnivores \(or "mostly herbivore"\), not [herbivores](https://www.livescience.com/53452-herbivores.html). This is seen in [gorillas](https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-do-gorillas-eat-and-other-gorilla-facts), [chimpanzees, bonobos](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/c/chimpanzee/), [monkeys](https://animalcorner.co.uk/animals/old-world-monkeys/) \(Old World - for human taxonomy\) humans. Only [55 million years ago](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diet-and-primate-evolution-2006-06/) was there a carnivorous primate \(insectivore\).
1.2.3.12.5.2.3. Con: Not all humans are truly herbivorous in their anatomy. Some humans [evolved to consume milk](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose), due to genes allowing them to digest lactose.
1.2.3.12.5.2.4. Pro: Most ancient civilizations were built on a plant\(s\) as a staple crop \(like [corn](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_015559.pdf) for the Hopi, [three sisters](https://www.thoughtco.com/three-sisters-american-farming-173034) of Native Americans, and [mongongo nuts](http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3g.shtml) for the !Kung Bushmen\).
1.2.3.12.5.3. Pro: We evolved [smaller jaws and saliva to break down starches](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/) to eat plants.
1.2.3.12.6. Con: The length of our digestive system is just like that of many other herbivores. Without fire we couldn't eat meat too.
1.2.3.12.6.1. Con: Actually, we could eat meat raw.  It's just that it's not as safe to do so; after all, cooking meat kills the bacteria that could find us a tasty host... and cooking improves the flavor quite a bit \(especially with a nice white wine and some oregano\).  In fact, there are relatively few animals that cannot be safely eaten by humans.  The same cannot be said for plants.
1.2.3.12.6.2. Con: "There is evidence that hominids were making tools and [eating meat](https://www.sapiens.org/body/early-humans-and-raw-meat/) as far back as 3.3 million years ago—and that they increased their meat consumption around 2.6 million years ago—yet evidence for cooking doesn't turn up until about 500,000 years ago."
1.2.3.12.7. Con: -> See 1.2.3.12.5.2.
1.2.3.12.8. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.12.5.2.1.
1.2.3.12.9. Con: While they may have evolved to be [omnivorous](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/omnivore/), humans also evolved into compassionate beings that can decide what to eat and what not to.
1.2.3.12.10. Con: If we evolved to eat meat due to dietary gaps, then we can evolve to eat a vegan diet as well.
1.2.3.12.10.1. Con: Evolution predates humanity and civilization, meaning it occurred in such a way that people had no control over what they evolved into. With recent advancements, people have more control over their environment and “evolving back” is no longer a simple matter of letting nature run its course.
1.2.3.12.10.1.1. Con: Even if we cannot currently direct our own evolution, we have the capabilities to do so and even may be able to do so immediately if we all decide or soon anyway with the current pace of progress.
1.2.3.12.10.1.1.1. Pro: We manipulate the entire global environment to the point that we alter our own bodies \(like [body temperature](https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=227239)\). It'll only be a matter of time before people harness that to be able to direct our own evolution on a mass scale towards adapting to a vegan diet if we put enough conscientious effort into it.
1.2.3.12.10.1.1.2. Pro: Transhumanism allows people to create a world that they want to live in, not limited by or reactive to the pre-setup environment they are born/placed in. People would then not be limited by nature \(including predetermined capabilities\), but rather their own imagination and location.
1.2.3.12.10.1.2. Con: Consciously evolving into a vegan diet is possible from an evolutionary standpoint, because [memory is passed down through genes](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-25156510). So if we are vegan for much of life, then these memories could be passed down to future generations \([14](https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ancestors-genetic-memories-passed-on-14-generations/) to be exact\) and may possibly lead them to act more and be vegan.
1.2.3.12.10.2. Con: In an ecosystem, [survival of the fittest](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/survival+of+the+fittest) involves not only evolution, but also [adaptation](http://www.differencebetween.net/science/nature/difference-between-adaptation-and-evolution/). Because evolution will not be fast enough for human survival, adaptation is the other option to use. Thus, even though veganism is not in our nature, we need to achieve it behaviorally to adapt to climate change.
1.2.3.12.10.3. Con: Humans as a species do not direct our evolution. Evolution is not a choice. We do not experience evolution per se in our lifetimes, so that makes consciously evolving into a vegan diet near impossible. Only a change in the environment \(along with our adaptations to it\) would cause such a change.
1.2.3.12.10.3.1. Con: Even though most of our decisions are outside of our capabilities \(like the environment and the bodies we're born with\), humans do make decisions that influence our evolution \(like manipulating the environment or deciding when and how many kids to have\). So with the little influence we have, we could do something in our evolutionary path to infuse veganism into it.
1.2.3.12.10.4. Con: Humans evolved to live in caves, yet very few people would want to return to living in them.
1.2.3.12.10.5. Pro: Humans are the most adaptable species on the [planet](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-may-be-most-adaptive-species/). This suggests that adapting the human diet is entirely feasible.
1.2.3.12.10.5.1. Pro: We are rational beings that are able to make wiser and more conscious decisions than in the past, considering all the nutritional, sociological and ecological benefits of a plant based lifestyle.
1.2.3.12.11. Con: -> See 1.1.11.1.
1.2.3.12.12. Pro: The human body processes meat a lot more efficiently and completely than it does vegetables or other fats.
1.2.3.12.12.1. Pro: The digestive processes of the human body have evolved to include [enzymes](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/) to digest meat in order to access the benefits of its nutrients.
1.2.3.12.13. Con: Just because it is in our nature, does not make it healthy. We developed a [craving for sugars, because it was scarce in the past](http://theconversation.com/how-the-diets-of-early-humans-explain-our-eating-habits-46481). We should not cater to our nature, just because it is innate, because it can cause us harm instead.
1.2.3.12.13.1. Pro: Since our meat-eating tendencies are different today \(we used to hunt for food\), we set ourselves up for disease \(like heart disease\) if we continue what is in our nature.
1.2.3.12.14. Con: Our history should not determine our future; while we were in need of meat in the past, this doesn't justify a need in the present.
1.2.3.12.14.1. Pro: People who don't live in regions where food is scarce don't have a problem getting enough calories and protein. In fact, most people easily take in too much, as is shown by increasing rates of obesity in the developed world.
1.2.4. Pro: Veganism could help [eradicate](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta) world hunger.
1.2.4.1. Con: World hunger is not currently caused by a lack of food but by [geopolitics](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/geopolitics-food-security-barriers-sustainable-development-goal-zero-hunger).
1.2.4.2. Con: The study does not take into account that manure \(animal fertilizer\) is used and [it benefits agriculture](https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42731/9428_ap037_1_.pdf?v=41055). Reducing livestock numbers makes agriculture harder/more costly.
1.2.4.3. Con: People and agriculture are not evenly distributed across the globe. Relying on agriculture alone could increase our dependency in global trade when compared to a hybrid system.
1.2.4.4. Con: World hunger could be eradicated regardless of whether humanity turned vegan or not. The world already produces enough food to feed every human on earth. The biggest problem is the distribution of the food. Veganism will not on its own solve this problem. Whilst veganism may be economically and ecologically beneficial, we should not regard it as the crux to humanitarian disparities.
1.2.4.5. Pro: We could stop world hunger or make food cheaper if we stopped eating meat. "We are currently growing enough food to feed [10 billion people](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts).".
1.2.4.5.1. Pro: A vegan society would use less productivity on nutrition because nutrients found in meat can be obtained from plants [more economically](https://www.superfoodly.com/is-meat-bad-for-you-antioxidants-in-meat-vs-vegetables/).
1.2.4.5.2. Pro: Raising animals for human consumption [requires more](http://Raising animals for human consumption requires more crops and farmland than not using animals.) crops and farmland than not using animals.
1.2.4.5.2.1. Pro: It is possible to cultivate [15 times more](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts) protein on any given area of land with soybeans rather than grazing cows.
1.2.4.5.2.2. Pro: A vegan diet is the [most efficient](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts) way to use land. A vegan requires 1/6th of an acre for a year of food, a vegetarian needs three times that much, and a meat eater needs 18-fold more land than a vegan.
1.2.4.6. Pro: Whole, minimally-processed vegan foods require [less refrigeration](https://imgur.com/a/kZKCVDB) than animal products, which spoil quickly. This makes vegan food cheaper and more feasible for less privileged individuals/societies.
1.2.4.7. Pro: Freezing and canning vegetables further increases their shelf life. This means food waste from spoilage could be greatly reduced.
1.2.4.7.1. Con: Freezing, canning, even drying meat increases their shelf life too. Food waste can be reduced, no matter what the food product is, animal or non-animal.
1.2.4.8. Pro: Vegan food discards could generously feed developing countries.
1.2.4.8.1. Pro: One of these is ugly produce. This equates to [70 billion pounds](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ugly-fruit-the-20-billion_b_10331570) of food wasted. That is enough to feed over 950,000 people, based on the amount that [Americans eat over a lifetime](http://web.archive.org/web/20171121195516/https://www.inverse.com/article/38623-pounds-of-food-united-states-calories).
1.2.4.9. Pro: Less than [800 million](http://foodaidfoundation.org/world-hunger-statistics.html) people in the world are starving. Livestock feed grain could [feed them all alone](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat) and still have some left over.
1.2.4.9.1. Pro: Meat wastes resources. According to [pyramid of biomass](http://web.archive.org/web/20170706004523/https://biology.tutorvista.com/ecology/ecological-pyramid.html), it takes 10x the amount of food for animals to consume than it creates for humans \(for example, 200kg of feed makes 20kg of meat\).
1.2.4.9.1.1. Pro: The [pyramid of biomass](http://web.archive.org/web/20170706004523/https://biology.tutorvista.com/ecology/ecological-pyramid.html) makes sense, as eating an animal takes three extra, measurable steps: Firstly, the plants' chemical energy has been digested into usable form. Secondly, some energy is used by the animal. Finally, the energy is transformed/stored within the animal \(which we would then eat\).
1.2.4.9.2. Con: The setup of our modern food system prevents livestock feed from becoming food for humans \(hence its current existing status\).
1.2.4.9.2.1. Pro: Even if that where the case, this statement is implying that first world countries that CAN do such large scale farming would be willing to offer huge amounts of food for pennies, or rather charity, [which they are notoriously bad at doing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors). This could only happen if the cost of cultivating crops is lower than the cost of exporting it halfway around the globe.
1.2.4.9.2.2. Pro: World hunger is caused by politics and not by lack of food or by lack of arable land.
1.2.4.9.2.2.1. Pro: Starvation happens because the people can either not pay for that food or through war or disaster it is not reaching the local communities. A vegan society will not change those reasons.
1.2.4.9.2.2.1.1. Pro: Veganism will [not solve hunger](http://veganzinga.com/going-vegan-wont-end-world-hunger/), because if there are no paying customers for the grain that is grown for livestock, then farmers will not grow it, or if they have it, give it to those in need.
1.2.4.9.2.2.2. Pro: Logically speaking, [meat corporations influence the government](https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/05/the-meat-industrys-grip-on-government-time-for-an-overhaul/) of various countries. So they have more power there, in terms of morality, than a small group of individuals do.
1.2.4.9.2.2.3. Con: World hunger has [always existed](http://www.fao.org/building-the-zerohunger-generation/learning-paths/working-for-zero-hunger/what-is-hunger/en/), as it can be caused by extreme weather changes, or natural disasters.
1.2.4.9.3. Con: That may be true for some livestock feed, but the rest isn't consumable by humans. Animals to repurpose plant/food waste \([pg 10](http://www.foodwastealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/FWRA_BSR_Tier3_FINAL.pdf)\) from ending up lower on the hierarchy of recovery options or in a landfill \([pg 9](http://www.foodwastealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/FWRA_BSR_Tier3_FINAL.pdf)\) and instead as a new source of food that we have thanks to this process.
1.2.4.9.3.1. Pro: The [grass, leaves and twigs](https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/resourcesforyou/animalhealthliteracy/ucm255500.htm) that many free grazing animals consume cannot be digested by humans.
1.2.4.9.3.1.1. Con: Although not all foods that animals eat can be eaten by humans, we can reduce food waste by eating parts of food not traditionally eaten to reduce food waste.
1.2.4.9.3.1.2. Con: Farmers do not need to grow foods \(like [hay](http://www.johnnyseeds.com/farm-seed/grasses-millets-and-sorghums/)\) that humans cannot eat once everyone goes vegan.
1.2.4.9.3.1.2.1. Pro: [Grain-fed animals](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-beef#section1) eat the same foods as humans.
1.2.4.9.3.1.3. Con: This is beneficial, because livestock damage the environment through grazing. Without grazing the living parts of plants, plants and ecosystems will be restored.
1.2.4.9.3.1.3.1. Pro: The grazing destruction will not continue because humans cannot consume previously-grazed plants, as they are inedible to them \(like [certain grasses](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_PLANTMATERIALS/publications/mdpmcbr8095.pdf)\).
1.2.4.9.3.1.4. Pro: A lot of food available to us now through meat will not be available to vegans, due to the lack of converting these plant products to food. [86%](http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html) of livestock feed's inedible for human consumption.
1.2.4.9.3.1.5. Pro: Without getting rid of the [residue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_residue) \(if grown as crops\) through animal grazing, it would build up as trash with no use.
1.2.4.9.3.1.5.1. Con: There are other, non-food uses with greater efficiency and direct help for humans than giving waste to animals \(like [compost](http://gentleworld.org/beginners-guide-to-organic-composting/), grass as [biomass energy](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053255.pdf), leaves as food plates, twigs as food utensils, etc.\).
1.2.4.9.3.1.5.2. Pro: Just leaving it on a farm would [create damage](https://www.lgseeds.com/agronomy/corn/agronomy-blog/2019/10/29/importance-of-managing-excess-corn-residue) to future crops, so animal [foraging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_feed) is a better option than this.
1.2.4.9.3.1.5.2.1. Con: Biochar could avoid the inadequacies of decomposing \(such as a [lack of breaking down without nitrogen](https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/gardening-techniques/building-garden-soil-wood-mulch-zmaz10onzraw)\), because it allows [unusable plant material to be utilized by the soil](https://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/biochar-how-build-soil-lock-carbon-build-fertility-farm).
1.2.4.9.3.1.5.2.2. Con: The [high amounts of crop residue](https://heritagelandbank.com/announcements/news-events/how-prevent-soil-erosion) that isn't eaten or decomposed should be left on the farm for crop rotation \(instead of removed or fed to animals\) to help keep the soil fertile and thus prevent soil erosion for future crops.
1.2.4.9.3.1.5.3. Pro: It's a lot more wasteful to put in resources \(water, chemicals, etc.\) to a crop with preventable waste when there's options for mostly or completely edible ones \(like, but not limited to, [celery](https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/vegetables/vgen/secondary-edible-parts.htm)\).
1.2.4.9.3.1.5.4. Pro: Residue management by removal requires [effort and resources](https://www.lgseeds.com/agronomy/corn/agronomy-blog/2019/10/29/importance-of-managing-excess-corn-residue) and still no use, so it still ends up as unused trash. This process is inefficient and can be avoided with [animal foraging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_feed).
1.2.4.9.3.1.6. Con: We don't need to bring back grazing animals in order to process undigestible plants. [Mushrooms](https://www.mushroom-appreciation.com/types_of_mushrooms.html#materials) can perform that task just fine.
1.2.4.9.3.1.7. Pro: Animals are fed easy-to-grow vegetable food whose main carbohydrate is cellulose, which [we cannot digest but they can](https://silverlakefarms.com/how-can-cows-digest-cellulose/).
1.2.4.9.3.1.7.1. Con: This is partly a circular argument, because many of these areas can only sustain "inedible" plants because they were once forests specifically cleared to make room for grazing land, or because years of monocropping has removed most nutrients from the soil. Animal agriculture is therefore also a cause of barren land, not just an answer to it.
1.2.4.9.3.1.7.2. Pro: Some food is too perishable to be able to reach/feed a developing nation, which is why it's better for it to become [animal feed instead of trash](https://huffpost.com/entry/food-waste-livestock-feed_n_57e947bbe4b0e80b1ba32213).
1.2.4.9.3.1.7.3. Pro: Animals then convert this indigestible food to useful nutrient that can fertilize food crops.
1.2.4.9.3.1.7.4. Pro: Areas where crop feed is grown often cannot support foods that are edible to humans, and is thus more useful for this purpose than otherwise.
1.2.4.9.3.1.8. Con: Technology may be able to resolve this problem.
1.2.4.9.3.1.8.1. Pro: Researchers are trying to [convert cellulose to starch](https://mappingignorance.org/2013/05/02/cellulose-conversion-to-starch-a-promising-strategy-for-future-global-food-demand/) to make inedible foods edible for humans.
1.2.4.9.3.1.8.2. Pro: The continuous progress in the field of genetic modification will allow more resilient crops to be produced which can then grow under less-than-ideal conditions where only inedible foods could be grown previously.
1.2.4.9.3.1.8.3. Pro: Instead of focusing on what we can't eat, increasing the percentage of edibility of a crop and [yield](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crop-yield.asp) would prevent inedible parts from being grown and needing to be eaten by livestock instead, while simultaneously creating more food for humans too.
1.2.4.9.3.1.8.4. Con: Technology brought higher yields, which lead to the generation of [higher residue levels](https://www.lgseeds.com/agronomy/corn/agronomy-blog/2019/10/29/importance-of-managing-excess-corn-residue). So more technology may just make the need for animals greater, not less.
1.2.4.9.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.9.3.1.7.2.
1.2.4.9.3.3. Pro: Grains grown for human consumption that are inferior or 'distinctly low quality' to not meet food standards \(like the [USDA](https://www.gipsa.usda.gov/fgis/standards/general_provisions.pdf)\) end up [tossed](http://www.amdsorter.com/color-sorting-process.html), but an alternative is repurposing it as [animal feed](https://books.google.com/books?id=UzlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA20&lpg=RA1-PA20&dq=food+waste+as+animal+feed+%22low+quality+grains%22&source=bl&ots=tzROptnG-4&sig=ACfU3U064NdHiIePx-JGyaqUfme0gxXelw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDrPfvlfXmAhWCMX0KHWbfDJQQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q='low%20quality%20grains%22&f=false). This provides the impoverished a new, [cheap](https://www.bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/MF2034.pdf) food source \(i.e. animal products\) and more option for meeting nutritional needs to counteract world hunger.
1.2.4.9.3.3.1. Con: If byproducts from vegan food processing are not being utilized by animals anymore, people will find another, vegan way to incorporate them back into the food system.
1.2.4.9.3.3.2. Con: Upcycling \(as done with [bananas](https://barnana.com/pages/sustainability)\) is a more direct way of bringing rejects back into the food system than feeding it to animals.
1.2.4.9.3.3.3. Con: Animals are not required in the solution, as growing low quality grains is preventable if we just grow better grains. So it isn't a essential issue that will stop the transition of the food system towards veganism.
1.2.4.9.3.3.4. Pro: [Byproducts from industries](https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/400/400-230/400-230.html) where the food is already extracted [become animal feed](https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43894177/PDF). Without giving it to animals, it would be difficult to find another use for them and may end up tossed instead of reprocessed into more food.
1.2.4.9.3.3.4.1. Con: [Byproducts from the bakery industry](https://extension.psu.edu/byproduct-feeds-and-precision-feeding) seem cheap, but could end up really expensive to meet the needs for nutritional consistency for animal products.
1.2.4.9.3.3.5. Con: Feeding livestock low quality feed grains doesn't really work to supply adequate nutrition \(like [protein and vitamins](https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/winterstorm/winter-storm-information-farm-and-ranch-information1/farm-and-ranch-information-cattle-nutrition/feeding-grain-to-stock-cows)\) and just sets them up for [malnutrition](https://www.feednavigator.com/Article/2019/11/15/Low-quality-forage-prompts-concerns-about-cattle-malnutrition). They could take supplements, but in the end, it may not a viable path.
1.2.4.9.3.3.6. Pro: Grains that get overproduced may end up [becoming low quality and trashed](https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/food-grains-rot-india-while-millions-live-empty-stomachs) \(from [spoilage](http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/inpho/docs/Post_Harvest_Compendium_-_BARLEY.pdf)\) if it's not consumed by humans. Since these won't get eaten, animals are able to consume them instead.
1.2.4.9.3.3.7. Pro: As humans gain higher incomes, they're [less interested](https://books.google.com/books?id=AFHRM0JBvPgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=human+consumption+%22low+quality+grains%22+livestock+feed+-pet&source=bl&ots=LXNwVE8Mqw&sig=ACfU3U0O9OlqXEasqJgnKCP-RZHjL7Rzeg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiy7JG8mPXmAhX0IDQIHWsCBasQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=human%20consumption%20%22low%20quality%20grains%22%20livestock%20feed%20-pet&f=false) with eating low quality grains. These would go to waste if animals don't repurpose it.
1.2.4.9.4. Pro: The crops are located right [where the impoverished growers are](https://www.forksoverknives.com/wellness/animal-agriculture-hunger-and-how-to-feed-a-growing-global-population-part-one-of-two/)(Eighty-two percent of the world’s starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, which are then killed and eaten by wealthier individuals in developed countries like the US, UK, and in Europe. One fourth of all grain produced by third-world countries is now given to livestock, in their own countries and elsewhere. Therefore, on a local basis, animal-based agriculture simply perpetuates hunger, poverty, and other components of the cycle such as illiteracy \(as high as 66 percent in some countries\) and poor human health.), which cuts out transportation costs to eat them, making it really affordable for growers to afford the food compared to expensive, distant animal products.
1.2.4.9.5. Con: Even in developed countries, the farmworkers [cannot afford or want to eat the vegan crops they grow](https://www.natividad.com/news_press_release/in-a-california-valley-healthy-food-everywhere-but-on-the-table/). So just because the food won't go to livestock anymore, doesn't automatically make mean it'll solve world hunger.
1.2.4.10. Con: The eradication of world hunger must include providing a reliably balanced and sufficient diet. Veganism does not do this.
1.2.4.10.1. Con: This is false. A vegan diet is not inherently unbalanced or insufficient. [The American Dietetic Association deems an appropriately planned vegan diet as nutritionally adequate.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/)
1.2.5. Con: If pesticides are used on crops \(especially greater use with GMO crops resistant to pesticides\), then a vegan diet might not be healthier for [populations nearby growing areas](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo).
1.2.5.1. Con: Organic crops are a much healthier alternative.
1.2.6. Con: Veganism can lead to depopulation, which is detrimental to humankind.
1.2.6.1. Pro: A vegan diet has been shown to [lower fertility](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11172519/Vegetarians-have-much-lower-sperm-counts.html), making a task of reproduction \(one of the [key functions of any living organism](http://www.web-formulas.com/Biology_Topics/Living_Organism_and_Its_Functions.aspx)\) more difficult to achieve. Therefore, it cannot be an optimal, or even healthy, diet for humans as species.
1.2.6.2. Con: Depopulation is beneficial to the humanity's survival, as it will help sustain the human population at a steady rate.
1.2.6.3. Con: Vegans, with their healthier diet and lifestyles, will [tend to live longer](https://prime.peta.org/2012/11/longer). Depopulation is fine then, because the slower birth rate will even out with the longer ages.
1.2.6.3.1. Pro: Without depopulation accommodating longer lifespans, overpopulation's effects, like overcrowding, would most likely occur \(evident by today's similar situation\).
1.2.6.4. Con: Depopulation with veganism is beneficial to humankind, because the longer people live, the more resources they use. Lower population numbers allows the vegans alive to better utilize the resources around them, as they would not have to compete with newer people for the same resources.
1.2.6.4.1. Pro: This is especially true, as everyone would be going after and needing to share the same resources, as everyone would be eating the same food and having the same lifestyles as each other worldwide.
1.2.6.5. Con: Veganism would actually allow an increase in the [carrying capacity](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/carrying-capacity) of the planet, thus leading to a greater population size that would then need to spend more resources on [infrastructure](https://blueprint.cbre.com/more-people-more-infrastructure-the-big-city-challenge/) \(housing, transportation, etc.\). This would undermine the supposed resource savings it creates.
1.2.6.5.1. Con: Increased carrying capacity does not automatically cause population growth.
1.2.6.5.2. Con: Even though there are more emissions from transportation, the ones in animal agriculture are much worse, due to its type. If greenhouse gas effects were compared instead, the clear winner is animal agriculture. Methane from animals is [~35x](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange) worse than CO2 from cars.
1.2.6.5.3. Con: This shouldn't be much of a worry, as even though cement contributes to [5%](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/cement-soaks-greenhouse-gases) of the greenhouse gases worldwide, it does [absorb CO2](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/cement-soaks-greenhouse-gases), thereby reducing its contribution by [almost half](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/cement-soaks-greenhouse-gases) \(and is a [better absorber](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/cement-soaks-greenhouse-gases) than even forests, by over double\).
1.2.7. Pro: Veganism may bring down [healthcare costs](http://www.pnas.org/content/113/15/4146) by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn reduces diseases like coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and cancer.
1.2.7.1. Pro: Red meats are linked to certain types of cancers which become very costly from a medical standpoint. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality \(AHRQ\), cancer related treatment cost the U.S. [$80.2 billion](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/economic-impact-of-cancer.html) in 2015 alone.
1.2.7.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.8.14.1.1.1.
1.2.8. Con: Being vegan would limit people's opportunities for experiences important to their development and life.
1.2.8.1. Con: People can have vegan activities that fill their time just as well as non-vegan ones.
1.2.8.1.1. Pro: People do not need to create art \(for health, like art therapy\) with non-vegan materials \(like [chalk](http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Chalk.html) or [animal products in paint](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/vegan-art-supplies-1039508)\) in the digital age \(like electronics to create digital art\).
1.2.8.1.1.1. Con: In order to produce digital devices, much of environment downgraded and much pollution is produced.
1.2.8.1.2. Pro: People could replace non-vegan [hobbies](http://www.notsoboringlife.com/list-of-hobbies/), like hunting, fishing, beach-combing, and building aquariums, with vegan ones like kayaking, yoga, genealogy, and robotics.
1.2.8.1.3. Pro: People can have an active life with activities that are vegan and have the same health benefits as those that are not. For instance, one could experience anywhere from fun to winning competitions doing mechanical bull rides as much as horseback riding.
1.2.8.1.4. Pro: People could swim in the ocean instead of pools \(which use [diatomaceous earth \(DE\) filters](http://www.poolcenter.com/dePoolFilter)\).
1.2.8.1.4.1. Pro: If a person owns a swimming pool, then they could switch to a [plant-based filter](https://www.poolsupplies.com/product/fiber-clear-filter-media) as an alternative to DE ones.
1.2.8.1.5. Pro: Instead of going to zoos and animal circuses, one could be around animals by visiting nature \(like a national park, sanctuary, or [nature reserve](https://www.trip.com/blog/10-breathtaking-nature-reserves-around-the-world/)\) or viewing it through a [webcam](http://explore.org/).
1.2.8.2. Pro: Humans would not be able to interact with nature in a fulfilling and exciting way, which would make society worse off overall.
1.2.8.2.1. Con: The notion that a fulfilling and/or exciting way to interact with nature must imply restraining, exploiting or killing animals is unfounded. There is no reason to think \(and certainly there is no evidence\) that vegans, on average, interact with nature in a less fulfilling and/or exciting way compared to non vegans.
1.2.8.2.1.1. Pro: There are many possibilites of interacting with or learning about nature that do not require killing or exploiting animals - like going visiting wildlife parks, hiking / mountain climbing, photography, visting museums, watching nature documentaries, working at animal shelters.
1.2.8.2.2. Pro: People learn about animals through non-vegan activities, like eating meat, having pets, visiting zoos, and hunting. Taking those activities away would make vegans less aware of animals due to less interactions with them.
1.2.8.2.2.1. Con: These are artificial interactions. Vegans will create a better learning experience for understanding animals, because they will see them with natural behavior and form. This process will create a better understanding and appreciation than forced animal encounters.
1.2.8.2.2.2. Con: Non-vegan practices make learning about animals harder, because such practices cause extinctions and dangers to the learning process that can make learning about animals almost impossible at times.
1.2.8.2.2.2.1. Pro: People might get traumatized over learning about an animal if they think about the ethics of it dying to study it \(such as with biology dissections\).
1.2.8.2.2.3. Con: People do not need to partake in non-vegan activities to learn about animals when the information is available in books and technology \(which gets better each year\).
1.2.8.2.2.4. Pro: Being up close and personal with animals can foster compassion and sympathy towards more animals than not being near them.
1.2.8.2.2.5. Pro: Being near animals can help organizations bring animal-related issues to the public's attention, especially at zoos.
1.2.8.2.3. Pro: Hunting and fishing are examples of interacting with nature in a fulfilling and exciting way.
1.2.8.2.3.1. Con: -> See 1.1.7.1.
1.2.8.2.3.2. Con: Hunting could still be allowed under more restrictive circumstances \(e.g. where population control is actually needed\).
1.2.8.2.3.3. Con: Virtual hunting and fishing could be a sufficient replacement.
1.2.8.2.3.3.1. Con: There is something uniquely satisfying about killing an animal for food and eating it that is lost when hunting or fishing virtually.
1.2.8.2.3.3.1.1. Con: Killing an animal and eating it is not necessary for a happy life.
1.2.8.2.4. Pro: People may miss out of people-animal interactions without a pet.
1.2.8.2.4.1. Con: -> See discussion #37726: The principle of pet ownership is vegan.
1.2.8.2.5. Pro: Both humans and animals get unique experiences \(especially shared ones\) from animal agriculture and wouldn't if the process didn't exist.
1.2.8.2.6. Pro: If people never ate meat, they would be deprived of a potentially fulfilling experience.
1.2.8.2.6.1. Con: People are not entitled to something solely on the basis that it is fulfilling. A rapist probably gets fulfilment from raping. That does not mean he is entitled to do so.
1.2.8.2.6.2. Con: Often, people don't know about many other foods and are therefore deprived of a fulfilling experience.
1.2.8.2.6.3. Con: Choosing to remain abstinent from something that is \(potentially\) harmful is not the same as deprivation.
1.2.8.2.6.4. Con: If someone never ate meat, they wouldn't miss it.
1.2.8.2.6.4.1. Pro: Refraining from an activity because you recognize its harmful impact is not the same as "missing out". Some people choose to never drink or smoke because of that reason.
1.2.8.2.6.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.8.
1.2.8.3. Pro: If people went vegan, they may not gain the same level of happiness as if they weren't vegan. That would make them miss out on living life to their greatest potential.
1.2.8.3.1. Pro: Vegans who date and have relationships may have a more difficult time due to [more complications](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzuX6czRUZM) \(arguing, being selective, etc.\) to where they would miss out on happy, crucial relationships normally found in a non-vegan's life.
1.2.8.4. Con: People can only have one experience at a time, and thus can only prioritize seeing best \(instead of being able to\). If they choose poorly, they will miss out on the best experiences, vegan or non-vegan. Thus, it should not matter whether or not we go vegan, because we miss out either way.
1.2.8.5. Con: People could learn about non-vegan lifestyles and ways in school without actually participating in it.
1.2.8.5.1. Pro: This is true of many tendencies of the past that we just learn about instead of actively participate in.
1.2.8.5.2. Pro: Non-vegan modes could be recreated through vegan means to learn from them without actually participating.
1.2.9. Pro: Veganism can help prevent the emergence and spread of [communicable](https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/communicable%20disease) diseases.
1.2.9.1. Pro: Vegans are less likely to contract and then spread [toxoplasmosis](https://stopfoodborneillness.org/pathogen/toxoplasmosis/), a parasite found in pets or undercooked meat.
1.2.9.1.1. Con: Vegans are more likely to contract toxoplasmosis. They are more likely to encounter vegetables that have grown where [cat faeces](https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/diseases/toxoplasmosis.html) might also be deposited, such as in [gardens and smaller plots](https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/epi.html).
1.2.9.1.2. Con: Since human to human transmission of the disease is [rare](https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/epi.html), veganism is unlikely to have a significant impact on cases of toxoplasmosis.
1.2.9.1.3. Pro: While human to human infection is not common, toxoplasmosis can be [passed](https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/toxoplasmosis.html)(People can catch toxoplasmosis from:\n\n • eating raw or undercooked meat \(especially lamb, pork, and venison\) from infected animals, or drinking contaminated water or unpasteurized milk\n• handling cat feces \(poop\) or soil that contains T. gondii eggs\n• being born with it \(a woman who gets toxoplasmosis while pregnant may pass the parasite to her unborn child through the bloodstream\)\n• very rarely, a contaminated blood transfusion or organ transplant) by affected pregnant women to their baby or, rarely, can be transmitted via a contaminated blood transfusion or organ donation.
1.2.9.2. Con: The most effective way to prevent communicable diseases in humans is through the practice of [good hygiene](https://www.health.state.mn.us/people/handhygiene/why/index.html) and food safety education \([p. 754](https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12571-020-01074-3.pdf)(Encouraging WASH practices through social and be-havioral interventions and social mobilization will be impor-tant to incentivize farmers tointernalize social costs ofunderinvesting in food-safety practices on the farm.Proper handling of food, improving storage quality for live-stock and food products and enhanced packaging standardswill reduce cross-species transmission.)\).
1.2.9.3. Pro: The way meat is produced [promotes antibiotic resistance](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment). Going vegan will drastically lower the chances of getting ill from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
1.2.9.3.1. Con: Some chickens do not contain any antibiotics. They run all day long around the park to stay healthy. Meat mass productions' unhealthy methods may not be confused with meat's own properties.
1.2.9.3.2. Pro: [80%](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/) of antibiotics sold go to animal agriculture, with most \([70%](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/)\) of them also used by humans. Thus, livestock increases the likelihood of antibiotic resistance to diseases people get.
1.2.9.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.9.
1.2.9.5. Con: [Wildlife](http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/09/co-management-of-food-safety-risks-from-wildlife-the-environment/#.W0tkAdUzrIU) may still be a source of food-borne illnesses in vegan food.
1.2.9.6. Pro: The largest outbreaks are linked to poor conditions in [markets and factory farms](https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/01/the-best-way-prevent-future-pandemics-like-coronavirus-stop-eating-meat-and-go-vegan-view)(In other words, many devastating disease outbreaks come about because humans house animals in filthy, severely crowded farms and markets – breeding grounds for pathogens – in order to satisfy their meat habit.). Veganism can limit the number of outbreaks, and in turn, the number of cases/deaths from these diseases worldwide.
1.2.9.6.1. Pro: Being vegan reduces the risk of catching diseases from raising livestock, such as [swine flu](https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/flu-guide/h1n1-flu-virus-swine-flu#1).
1.2.9.6.2. Pro: The 2020-2021 [coronavirus pandemic](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/about-epidemiology/identifying-source-outbreak.html) in humans is largely attributed to the live sale of animals in a [wet market](https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2020/04/wet-markets-likely-launched-coronavirus-heres-what-you-need-know).
1.2.9.6.2.1. Con: The link to a [food-animal source for COVID-19](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200221-coronavirus-the-harmful-hunt-for-covid-19s-patient-zero) \(i.e. a Wuhan wet market\) is inconclusive and full scientific [investigation](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(21\)00295-6/fulltext) has only just begun.
1.2.9.6.3. Pro: Every [major pandemic](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2020/sep/15/covid-farm-animals-and-pandemics-diseases-that-changed-the-world)(...several months after Covid-19 exploded into the world, the UN published a report looking more closely at our relation to zoonotic disease. Wildlife, and our increasing proximity to wildlife, is the most common source, but farmed animals are not only original sources, they can be transmission sources or bridging hosts, carrying the infection from the wild to humans. “Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of animals involved in historic zoonotic events or current zoonosis are domestic \(livestock, domesticated wildlife and pets\), which is logical as the contact rates are high.”) \(and purportedly the bubonic [plague](https://www.cdc.gov/plague/index.html)(Humans usually get plague after being bitten by a rodent flea that is carrying the plague bacterium or by handling an animal infected with plague.)\) either have confirmed or suspected links to animal-keeping, as the viruses are [zoonotic](https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html)(However, animals can sometimes carry harmful germs that can spread to people and cause illness – these are known as zoonotic diseases or zoonoses. Zoonotic diseases are caused by harmful germs like viruses, bacterial, parasites, and fungi.).
1.3. Con: There are stringent rules and radical changes associated with veganism that are too difficult for the average person to easily incorporate into their lives.
1.3.1. Con: Veganism is by [definition](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism)(A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose...) flexible and thus feasible for most people and circumstances.
1.3.1.1. Pro: This flexibility of Veganism allows us to understand and practice it from different approaches. For instance, there's no moral inconsistency for a vegan to kill a mosquito, bugs, or exterminate pests, if they choose to do so in self-defense. Veganism is also practiced by some [Freegans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism#Veganism_and_food_waste) who don't eat animal products but may redistribute leftovers so the needlessly suffering of animals don't go to the trash. Or some may even make exceptions at invitations or gifts.
1.3.2. Pro: Following the ethical logic of veganism creates a high moral standard that humans would struggle to adapt to.
1.3.2.1. Con: Whether becoming vegan is difficult does not affect whether we ought to.
1.3.2.1.1. Pro: Resistance usually is because someone doesn't want to do something, rather than that they can't. Cigarette and health laws are difficult to change, due to a profit incentive, when most laws are changed practically on a whim these days. It's all relative, based on effort and priorities.
1.3.2.2. Pro: Ethics won't work for making everyone vegan, because people are driven by money. Economics is so heavily ingrained with humans that it impacts their daily lives, and a change like worldwide veganism would be so large that the economic changes would be unethical.
1.3.2.2.1. Pro: If everyone in the world were to become vegan, it would be an economical disaster destroying multi-trillion dollar industries.
1.3.2.2.1.1. Pro: The [lack of crop diversity](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26382067) in the food marketplace could lead to serious food shortages due to crop failure, which could further lead to malnutrition and ultimately plagues.
1.3.2.2.2. Pro: One of the biggest motivations for adopting a vegan diet is out of compassion for animals and/or the environment. However, [psychopaths](https://www.healthline.com/health/psychopath) don't have any compassion and hence will not be persuaded by the morality of veganism.
1.3.2.2.2.1. Pro: In order to say that humans should be vegan, humans need to be able to become vegan. This is known as [Ought Implies Can](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ought_implies_can).
1.3.2.2.2.1.1. Con: The "Ought Implies Can" argument is widely debated, and is challenged by the "[Is-Ought Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem)" argument.
1.3.2.2.2.2. Con: Given that lack of compassion would interfere with following many of the moral codes we use to structure society \(e.g. prohibiting violence\), we should not base our view of what society to strive for based on whether it would work for a small group that is already at odds with our social norms.
1.3.2.3. Pro: A vegan world is not possible. Vegan food is sometimes prepared using indirectly animal-derived products. Even if all products are animal-free, they might be produced using other tools that derive from animals and so on. You are never 100% vegan. Even just by living in this society, using its benefits, you are living off the usage of animals. The only way to be totally free is to live in nature.
1.3.2.3.1. Pro: -> See discussion #10281: There is no such thing as "vegan"
1.3.2.3.2. Con: The [definition](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism), in the circumstances of little capabilities to express one's vegan lifestyle, it would certainly be impossible and impracticable to avoid animal products. Eating animal products in such circumstances is therefore not in conflict with the definition of veganism.
1.3.2.3.3. Con: The point of veganism is to reduce the amount of contribution to unnecessary suffering and death of animals, when there are many similar alternatives that constitute a healthier diet.
1.3.2.3.4. Pro: Many [non-food](https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html) [products](http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/06/07/8-items-animal-byproducts/) [rely](https://www.peta.org/living/food/animal-ingredients-list/) on [animal](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/15-surprising-things-that-contain-animal-products-2014-3) [products](http://roogirl.com/20-everyday-items-that-contain-animal-ingredients/) in their production chain.
1.3.2.3.4.1. Con: The production of complex chemicals is work in process, but is certainly possible with genetically manipulated bacteria and yeasts. E.g. [insulin](https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/fromdnatobeer/exhibition-interactive/recombinant-DNA/recombinant-dna-technology-alternative.html); and even [milk](https://qz.com/1161955/perfect-day-is-making-convincing-cow-free-milk-by-genetically-engineering-yeast/).
1.3.2.3.4.2. Con: We could research substitutes to these products, currently, for some of these cases, substitutes exist but we simply don't use them as they're more expensive.
1.3.3. Con: The fact that something is difficult is not an excuse. If a person defers to the idea of it being the case, that is a choice in itself, a self-enacting postulate, and in essence amounts to active self-deceit based on either weakness, laziness, lecherousness, spite, or immorality - all of which are reprehensible in the context. A person can do it, it is a matter of them effectively choosing not to.
1.3.4. Con: It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It is reasonable to expect the average person to abide by veganism to the extent they are able whilst placing the main burden on the politicians to drive the socio-political changes creating more accessible vegan options.
1.3.5. Pro: The definition of veganism used in this discussion is arbitrary and has no end, as it asks adherents to reduce the exploitation of animals as much as possible. This makes the cutoffs \(of what veganism is/is not\) difficult to define and thus hard to follow.
1.3.5.1. Con: -> See 1.3.1.
1.3.5.2. Con: That is misinterpreting the tenet. It is explicit in its unboundedness and lack of specifics, defined thus to allow for a set of moral principles that are not subject to contemporary science, industry, technological capabilities. "As far as is possible and reasonable" does not stand in relation to the individual, but to the set of general circumstances that envelop the individual. In the same wording it also mandates pressing on, improving on our capacities, to minimise it even further.
1.3.5.3. Pro: The vegetarian diet is easier to follow, as the definition is more concrete and objective. Foods can be scientifically analyzed to decide what is vegetarian or not. This compares to the definition of veganism, which is looser and more subjective in its interpretation.
1.3.5.3.1. Con: The vegetarian diet is rather morally arbitrary. E.g. killing a chicken is wrong, but killing a young rooster because it can't lay eggs is alright;  Killing cows is wrong, but killing young bulls that the milk industry can't use is alright.
1.3.5.3.2. Pro: For certain foods, like [oyster mushrooms](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/comments/3ck3tp/are_oyster_mushrooms_vegan/), the [debates](http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/207104195/but-is-it-vegan-oyster-mushrooms) clustered around it [shape](http://www.organicauthority.com/oysters-vegan-food-or-not) the list of what is vegan and what is not.
1.3.5.3.3. Pro: The definition of vegetarian is "no meat", so if one follows the definition line: meat -\> flesh -\> tissues \(groups of cells and cell parts with the same function\), then one could figure out how to be a vegetarian just by avoiding eating animal tissue.
1.3.5.3.4. Pro: The definition of vegan has a looser interpretation, because it talks about "reducing" animal exploitation/harm. This can translate to going vegan as far as the dieter wants to go rather than everyone on the diet following the same regimen.
1.3.5.3.5. Con: Just because an action is easier to follow, does not mean it is the better course for humans to take.
1.3.5.4. Con: Arbitrary definitions should not stop the world from going vegan, as their nature allows them to be reformed. Thus, we can change the definition, through refining, what veganism is so that the world can actually adhere to it without conflict and confusion.
1.3.5.4.1. Con: Eating unicellular organisms wipes out there life and gives preferential treatment to multicellular organisms. A better idea would be to eat only non-animal multicellular organisms without severely injuring or killing them.
1.3.5.4.2. Pro: Unicellular organisms do not matter much in preservation of life to humans, because unicellular organisms at times attack humans. This makes humans accepting of defending themselves, such as killing bacteria through antibiotics. So if humans kill bacteria to preserve themselves, there is no worries about killing them for other purposes for self-preservation, such as eating them.
1.3.5.4.2.1. Pro: Even if a person did not want to kill bacteria that makes them ill, so they do not harm them, their bodies unconsciously do it anyway \(through the immune system\). Killing unicellular organisms is unavoidable by humans, so there is no moral dilemma associated with it.
1.3.5.4.2.1.1. Con: People could stay healthy, so their bodies don't get sick to the point their bodies generate immune cells to kill unicellular organisms
1.3.5.4.2.2. Con: Just because one set of unicellular organisms are bad, doesn't make them all bad. The unicellular organisms that do not harm us do not deserve to die.
1.3.5.4.2.3. Con: Just because unicellular organisms attack humans, does not justify killing them. We should extend protections to all lifeforms, no matter how bad they are.
1.3.5.4.2.4. Con: Just because other lifeforms are harming us, does not mean we should go on a 'killing spree' because of it. Two wrongs do not make a right.
1.3.5.4.2.4.1. Pro: Animals can kill us, does not mean we should take revenge on them.
1.3.5.4.2.5. Con: [Unicellular organisms](https://microchemlab.com/information/introduction-bacteria-viruses-fungi-and-parasites) \(and even further, like viruses, [transposons](http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/transposons-your-dna-thats-on-the-go/), and proteins - like [prions](https://www.cdc.gov/prions/index.html)\) that are [parasitic](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parasite) or parasites to animals are likely not vegan: they exploit animals, so we'd be contributing to animal exploitation even at the cellular level. So even unicellular organisms matter in the debate about what's vegan and what's not.
1.3.5.4.3. Pro: This definition includes anything that is not an animal: fungi, plants, cyanobacteria, etc.
1.3.5.4.4. Pro: If veganism can be concretely defined as a 'no animal lifestyle', rather than one that seeks reduction of animal exploitation, then a layout is set up in a way that people can follow.
1.3.5.4.5. Pro: The word 'vegan' is just an ambiguous label for a one person's concept of a philosophy, not a concrete definition. Thus, it can be redefined \(just like the word 'organic'\) by others to solidify the concept.
1.3.5.4.5.1. Pro: The word vegan may be confusing, only because it is possibly a half-baked idea by someone just trying to introduce it to the world. It's up to the world to advance the term into something usable, as one person can only go so far with an idea.
1.3.5.4.6. Con: The arbitrary definitions already mean that even if a person is a typical 'vegan', they wouldn't technically be a true vegan. This default automatically prevents anyone from ever going vegan.
1.3.5.4.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.3.1.
1.3.5.4.6.2. Con: Even though no human can technically follow the definition of veganism, just having the definition allows us to try to get as close as possible to being vegan as we can.
1.3.5.4.7. Con: Changing the definition would be a version of cheating, which would not help us get to veganism any better than before.
1.3.5.4.8. Con: If the arbitrary definition is changed to become more clear, some meaning might be lost and we might not actually be able to follow what the original definition was about.
1.3.5.5. Pro: Because the definition's focus is on reduction and not elimination, animal exploitation could still take place.
1.3.5.5.1. Con: This approach might be detrimental to the animal cause. In terms of consumption levels, 10% [reducetarians](https://reducetarian.org/faq) would deprive of more profits to the meat industry than 1% vegans. Especially when taking into account for how long. Portraying Veganism as something difficult or purity-related may cause that Vegans [abandon their diet](https://faunalytics.org/a-summary-of-faunalytics-study-of-current-and-former-vegetarians-and-vegans/) or label and most to not even consider it. If everyone would do the best they could \(whatever that is\) there would be no animal abuse.
1.3.5.5.2. Pro: For example, the part "as far and is possible and practical" could loosely be interpreted to get someone to eat less meat than before, without getting rid of it completely. Thus, they still contribute to cruelty/exploitation even when following the diet/lifestyle.
1.3.5.5.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.3.2.
1.3.5.5.3. Pro: People can justify calling themselves vegan and get away with exploitation animals, just by saying that they are trying to reduce exploitation rather than actually doing it.
1.3.5.5.4. Con: The issue with complete elimination of animal exploitation is that it would be incredibly restricting and difficult to accomplish, making reduction a better method than complete elimination.
1.3.5.5.4.1. Pro: Today's definition of veganism typically involves avoiding animal products that directly come from it, such as [meat, eggs, dairy, honey, wool, etc](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/vegvsnonveg-130123001435-phpapp01-160909190908/95/vegetarian-and-non-vegetarian-food-4-638.jpg?cb=1473448497). Elimination would mean indirect products too, such as crops pollinated by [artificially populated](https://ocba.wildapricot.org/Bees/Resources) or [farmed bees](https://homeguides.sfgate.com/plants-pollinate-greenhouse-48465.html) too. Removing those from a person's life would be difficult and too limiting than the typical idea of what veganism is.
1.3.5.6. Pro: The definition is centered around animals and not people's health, which makes it more difficult for people to stick to it.
1.3.5.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.11.2.
1.3.5.7. Pro: For some, veganism means abstaining from all products from animals, including those that lived and died naturally.
1.3.5.7.1. Pro: Just because an animal died before the concept of veganism came about, does not mean that utilizing those animals for exploitative means is not vegan. In the end, animal remains are still animal products if consumed.
1.3.5.7.2. Con: Animals that died naturally and peacefully are fine for vegans, as no cruelty was involved in their deaths.
1.3.5.7.2.1. Pro: The very roots of the vegan movement are [premised](https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Ripened%20by%20human%20determination.pdf) on reducing suffering: "\[t\]he suffering and slaughter of animals was the starting point for the creation of The Vegan Society."
1.3.5.7.2.2. Con: Not every vegan agrees. The American Vegan Society, for instance, believes becoming vegan involves "[discontinuing use of all animal products](http://www.americanvegan.org/howtobevegan.html)", which includes those that died naturally.
1.3.5.7.2.3. Con: This claim has faulty logic, as the Vegan Society's definition involves exploitation and cruelty, while this claim only talks about cruelty while neglecting the other parts of the definition.
1.3.5.7.2.4. Con: Looking at only the cruelty at the time of death does not compensate for the cruelty within an entire animal's life \(the end does not justify the means\). If this was the case, then milk would be an acceptable food if the cow died naturally.
1.3.5.7.3. Con: [Avoiding animal products is impossible](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching), as every atom on Earth got circulated by an animal on Earth. Thus, avoiding animal products, and thus being a vegan, is not possible on Earth.
1.3.5.7.4. Pro: Abstaining from all animal products sends the message that animal consumption is fundamentally unnecessary. If a vegan were to consume animals that died from natural causes it would be an implicit admission that a life without consuming animals is a worse life.
1.3.5.8. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.3.1.
1.3.5.9. Con: The cutoff \(of what veganism is and is not\) might be definitive after all.
1.3.5.9.1. Pro: Veganism is [defined](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) as "a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." "As far as is possible and practicable" means that as long as replacements are not available it is alright to use the animal product.
1.3.5.9.1.1. Con: Possible and practical are non-interchangeable words.  Further if the standard is practicable, there is no objective standard for determining the practicability of something.  It is possibly for something to be available but expensive, but it is unclear at what point it is impractically expensive.  According to this claim, perhaps one is expected you to use something because it is available, even if it isn't affordable.
1.3.5.9.1.2. Pro: This definition is not [arbitrary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary) as it is neither defined randomly nor defined by individual preference or convenience.
1.3.5.9.2. Pro: The cutoff could stop at the naturally-created molecular level for it to be vegan. An example is if an animal's products become molecular naturally \(like breathing out CO2\) and not an exploitative source \(like growing animals for CO2 production\) and becomes indistinguishable from the same molecules not from animals \(like CO2 from volcanoes\), it is vegan. If animal remains are intact \(like non-decomposed bones\), then those are not vegan.
1.3.5.9.2.1. Pro: This is a definition that is workable, as some animal-specific molecules are distinguishable from non-living sources, such as collagen. This means that a manufacturer cannot break down an animal into molecular components and call it vegan.
1.3.5.9.2.2. Con: The definition of intact vs. not intact remains is anthropocentric. Thus this prioritizes our own interests over the interests of animals, which is counter to the core tenets of veganism.
1.3.5.9.2.2.1. Pro: The distinction \(between intact/non-intact remains\) probably does not impact the quality of life of animals in general. Thus, humans should not make man-made decisions that would not happen in nature.
1.3.5.9.2.2.2. Con: There is no easy way of consulting animals before making decisions, so animals are not part of the decision-making process for humans \(with the exception of animals getting negatively impacted by such decisions\).
1.3.5.9.2.2.3. Con: There are difficulties in knowing the thoughts of animals, so it is faulty to make assumptions on them.
1.3.5.9.2.2.4. Con: Just because the definition is anthropocentric, does not mean we should not take it into consideration. To think about everything, veganism in general seems to be anthropocentric, as animals probably do not think about the animal they eat before they eat it.
1.3.5.9.2.2.5. Pro: These animals lived and died practically billions of years before any humans set foot on this planet, let come up with the idea of veganism. Thus, to those animals, their remains are questionable as to whether they are vegan or not.
1.3.5.9.2.2.5.1. Con: Just because an event happened before a definition came about, does not mean that the definition does not apply to the condition. If that were the case, then dinosaurs would not be reptiles, because that classification only existed from the [1730s](https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/birds-dinosaurs-reptiles), only after more reptiles emerged from them to connect the dots for scientists. Thus, believing dinosaurs are reptiles are relevant, even though there were no capabilities to really label them such when they were around.
1.3.5.9.2.2.5.2. Con: This type of circular thinking does not further the idea of whether people should go vegan or not, but only creates a logical dead-end. If humans make definitions for their use, there is no reason for humans not to use them.
1.3.5.9.3. Pro: Taxonomic classifications can help to determine whether a biological cell \(to eat\) is vegan or not.
1.3.5.9.3.1. Pro: If the single cell \(the [basic unit of life](http://www.biologydiscussion.com/cell/unit-of-life/cell-the-basic-unit-of-life-with-diagram/11099)\) comes from an animal source \(like [cultured meat](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/06/article-2384715-1B298543000005DC-270_634x267.jpg) or [eggs](http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-largest-biological-cell.htm)\), then it is not vegan. If it comes from unicellular organisms \(like [spirulina, a cyanobacteria](http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanolh.html)\), plants, fungi, or other non-animal source, then it is vegan.
1.3.5.9.3.2. Pro: Determining cells individually is really helpful in the definition of veganism. This is helpful especially in difficult situations like unicellular organisms, like [protist colonies](https://study.com/academy/lesson/colonial-protists-definition-examples.html) and [chromists](http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chromista/chromista.html). They do not seem vegan when just looking at them \(looks like one organism\), but at the cellular level, they are.
1.3.5.9.3.2.1. Con: Some vegans, like [Jains](http://www.jainfoodie.com/jain-food-restrictions/), do not believe that unicellular organisms are vegan, as it's a lifeform too that would be harmed if consumed.
1.3.5.9.4. Con: A stated goal of veganism is to reduce animal suffering. However, "suffering" is too vaguely defined.
1.3.5.10. Con: The definition used here is [pragmatic](http://www.flanderstoday.eu/living/vegan-visionary-preaches-pragmatism-instead-moralising), rather than dogmatic, and thus is actually easier to follow then other forms of veganism.
1.3.5.11. Pro: The obscurity and lack of understanding the definition \(through its vagueness\) creates enough confusion to prevent people from having viability in making the decisions required for being vegan.
1.3.5.11.1. Pro: If someone finds veganism a mystery to them, their confusion will lead them to not know how and never be able to achieve what it is requiring of them to do.
1.3.5.12. Pro: Having an arbitrary definition creates issues that push veganism into being short-lived or prevent it from emerging. We should not waste our time until the issues are resolved and the vegan movement can sustain itself into the long-term.
1.3.5.12.1. Pro: One of these issues is endless debates, in which people might decide not to be vegan since they would not know how to or see injustice in some people not following it as much as others. This would make everyone being vegan a greater issue than now, as it'll take people away from focusing on how to be or stay vegan.
1.3.5.12.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.5.7.3.
1.3.5.12.2. Pro: If people try to be vegan and find out they are doing it incorrectly, they will have a disliking and distrust towards the idea and decide not to follow it \(not to mention telling others about their bad experience, so they decide not to either\). This makes the world going vegan really difficult to accomplish.
1.3.5.12.3. Pro: If sources try to provide their own idea of what the arbitrary definition entails and people realize that each source has conflicting information with each other, then people may never figure out how to become vegan, even if they want to, solely out of distrust of information and lack of support.
1.3.6. Con: People can make minimal, practically unnoticeable vegan substitutions to their non-vegan lifestyle; so they won't notice enough to worry or miss out on its favorable aspects.
1.3.6.1. Con: Vegan substitutes are not regulated and generate other sustainability related issues .
1.3.6.1.1. Pro: Market pressures on local prices reduces affordability for local populations for which it is a staple food for 4,000 years. In [Bolivia and Peru, quinoa](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/quinoa_bad_for_bolivian_and_peruvian_farmers_ignore_the_media_hand_wringing.html) causes this issue.
1.3.6.1.2. Pro: Quinoa is very thirsty to grow, especially in with monoculture/industrial methods. Local water resources are getting depleted.
1.3.6.1.2.1. Pro: Monoculture crops can also lead to a [drop in the local biodiversity](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/food-system-monocultures-gm-un-diversity-day).
1.3.6.1.3. Pro: Market regulation for superfoods are too relaxed, pressured by the boom of the demand. This causes issues at times, like in the [supply chain and with sustainability](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/magazine/the-superfood-gold-rush.html).
1.3.6.2. Con: Many of these vegan/vegetarian alternatives are [more processed](http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food/article/fake-meat-gets-real) than their meat counterparts. More processing is definitely less healthy than less.
1.3.6.2.1. Con: If one makes meat alternatives at home \(like a raw veggie patty\), then it would require less processing than a meat patty \(which requires packaging and cooking\)
1.3.6.2.2. Con: "Processed = not healthy" is a [false implication](http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson12.html) and a [naturalistic fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/131/Naturalistic-Fallacy).
1.3.6.2.2.1. Pro: Some forms of food processing increase the accessibility of certain nutrients in foods, or else simply have no effect on a food's nutrient value.
1.3.6.2.2.1.1. Pro: Processing can improve the digestibility of food by making certain nutrients more readily available.
1.3.6.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: Heating during processing makes the protein in legumes more digestible \([p. 160](https://www.paho.org/English/CFNI/cfni-caj37No304-art-3.pdf)\).
1.3.6.2.2.1.1.2. Con: Food containing reducing sugars is [made indigestible](https://www.paho.org/English/CFNI/cfni-caj37No304-art-3.pdf) by heating \(p. 162\).
1.3.6.2.2.1.2. Con: Vitamin B, Vitamin C, and many amino acids are lost due to processing \([p. 160](https://www.paho.org/English/CFNI/cfni-caj37No304-art-3.pdf)\).
1.3.6.2.2.2. Pro: Processing doesn't determine how healthy an item of food is. Meat can carry far more, and often worse, diseases which is infinitely more unhealthy than just "processed" food.
1.3.6.2.2.2.1. Pro: If meat is raw and uncooked, then it is even less healthy than cooked, because of the diseases it carries that get 'removed' in the cooking process.
1.3.6.3. Con: People who enjoy hunting will miss killing animals.
1.3.6.3.1. Pro: According to the US Department of Interior, [40%](https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/new-5-year-report-shows-1016-million-americans-participated-hunting-fishing-wildlife) of the US population engages in activities such as hunting and fishing.
1.3.6.3.2. Con: There are substitutes for hunting, such as video games, VR, and target practice in national forests. Better ones may also come along when people forgo hunting for veganism.
1.3.6.3.3. Con: [Trophy hunting](https://www.hsi.org/issues/trophy-hunting/#:~:text=Overview,decline%20of%20many%20imperiled%20species.) is, in itself, completely unethical and wasteful. Hunting for the mere thrill of taking a life is diabolical. There is little difference between taking an animal or human life.
1.3.6.4. Pro: If the majority of humans became vegan, science would focus on creating more and better vegan food, which would convince the other part of humanity to also become vegan.
1.3.6.5. Con: The difficulty of following and maintaining a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle almost exclusively stems from the prominent place of animal based products in society and culture; it has everything to do with the fact that it is - in today's society - hard to find good vegan ingredients, recipes, restaurants, street food, etc. and is in no way inherent to the diet itself.
1.3.6.6. Pro: It's not an inconvenience to make these few substitutions for businesses, as many [seemingly vegan products](https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/10-supposedly-vegan-foods-that-contain-animal-products) that are not there yet could easily be made vegan and customers will likely not notice.
1.3.6.6.1. Pro: [Beer](https://www.vegan.com/beer/), [whiskey](https://veganvalor.com/is-whiskey-vegan/), and [french fries](https://veganfoodlover.com/are-french-fries-vegan/) are able to be vegan. So they're good enough that they don't need a change.
1.3.6.6.1.1. Con: These vegan products are also made not vegan, so the ones with animal products would need to change to be vegan.
1.3.6.7. Pro: Switching out non-vegan consumer products to vegan ones is possible to accomplish and easier than ever.
1.3.6.7.1. Pro: There are [vegan cosmetics](https://theaspiringvegans.com/how-to-identify-vegan-cosmetics/#more-356) that people can learn about and [buy](https://www.vegan.com/guides/makeup/) these days.
1.3.6.7.1.1. Pro: People can by soap bars without [tallowates](https://www.sharecare.com/health/skin-cleansing-products/what-is-sodium-tallowate), such as castille soap bars.
1.3.6.7.2. Pro: People do not need to wear clothing from animal products to stay healthy, even in extreme weather.
1.3.6.7.2.1. Pro: Leather is an inessential clothing material that can be replaced by [plant fibers](https://www.trustedclothes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/fiber-plants.png) if everyone went vegan.
1.3.6.7.2.1.1. Pro: Because leather is a [byproduct of the meat industry](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/27/ethicalfashion.leather), it is a waste not to use it. However, if everyone went vegan, there would be no worries of wasting resources \(because the meat industry would not exist to create such byproduct\).
1.3.6.7.3. Pro: People can make vegan choices for spaces they occupy without compromising quality and integrity.
1.3.6.7.3.1. Pro: People do not need to make homes sourced with once-living materials \(like [marble](https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/acidrain/4.html) counter-tops\) to make it livable, safe, and healthy to live in when non-living materials work just as well \(like [granite](http://solidsurface.com/ideas-guides/materials/granite) counter-tops\)
1.3.6.7.3.2. Pro: [Faux fur](https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/house-garden/furniture/best-faux-fur-rug-sheepskin-white-black-large-a7529266.html) rugs can replace traditional fur rugs.
1.3.6.7.4. Pro: Vegan jewelry, like gemstones \(excluding [amber](http://www.ambericawest.com/baltic/)\), bamboo beads, twine, [seeds](https://jennyhoople.com/shop/jobs-tears-seeds-ready-for-beading-andor-viable-for-growing/), and porcelain could replace [non-vegan ones](http://www.americanvegan.org/howtobevegan.html).
1.3.6.7.5. Con: Many non-food items [contain](https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html) irreplaceable animal products, for example [personal computers](https://www.deliciousliving.com/special-diets/vegetarian-vegan/10-things-you-thought-were-vegan-arent/). Animal products are used in multitude of products nobody really thinks of.
1.3.6.7.5.1. Pro: Supposedly vegan foods might have hidden non-vegan components on them, even though the end product is vegan itself, like [shellac and gelatin on bananas](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713516306089).
1.3.6.7.5.1.1. Pro: If people grow their own food when vegan, then they can make more informed choices about what is in their food and not resort to eating non-vegan food unintentionally.
1.3.6.7.5.1.2. Pro: These non-vegan components can become a health risk, especially if a person is avoiding non-vegan foods due to allergies \(such as the [gelatin](https://www.foodallergy.org/common-allergens/other-food-allergens) and possibly shellac \([1](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Or%20Shellac%20Technical%20Evaluation%20Report%20%282014%29.pdf), [2](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Or%20Shellac%20Technical%20Advisory%20Panel%20Report%20%282002%29.pdf)\) on bananas\).
1.3.6.7.6. Pro: People can find vegan options with pets.
1.3.6.7.6.1. Con: If animals have individual rights, they should not be enslaved, which means pets would have to be abolished.
1.3.6.7.6.1.1. Pro: Pets are not needed for health, as they can cause [illness](https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html), trigger [allergic reactions](http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/general-health/air/air-quality-pet-dander.php), and create overall [health risks](https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/advice/g595/pet-health-risks/?slide=1) to people in general \(especially owners\).
1.3.6.7.6.1.1.1. Con: Pets can actually help to [improve your immune system](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex5y6OVVHe0).
1.3.6.7.6.1.2. Pro: Pets \(like [cats](http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/03/18/hawaii-news/feral-cats-make-invasive-species-list/) and [fish](http://www.saltwatersmarts.com/why-never-release-marine-aquarium-livestock-into-wild-2792/)\) can cause damage to the environment \(especially wildlife\) by becoming invasive. Not having them would decrease this issue.
1.3.6.7.6.1.2.1. Con: Veganism as a practice does not necessarily reject pet ownership.
1.3.6.7.6.1.3. Pro: People can find ways to cope without a pet, such as having more social interaction with each other.
1.3.6.7.6.1.3.1. Con: -> See 1.2.8.2.4.
1.3.6.7.6.1.4. Con: -> See 1.2.8.2.4.
1.3.6.7.6.1.5. Con: -> See 1.2.8.2.4.1.
1.3.6.7.6.2. Pro: Pet foods with meat is not necessary to buy if people's pets are herbivores, such as [hamsters and rabbits](http://www.vegansouls.com/pets-for-vegan).
1.3.6.7.6.3. Pro: Vegan pets would be a better option than/replacement for human children in terms of veganism, as the kids might not have respect for animals or choose to consume animal products at some point in their life and with vegan pets, and one can insure that doesn't happen when having a pet.
1.3.6.7.6.4. Con: Veganism should not involve changing the diet of animals who require animal products, like cats, to a diet unnatural to them.
1.3.6.7.6.4.1. Pro: Meat production cannot be stopped unless we stop keeping pets that require this food source altogether, which is unlikely to happen \(as people like and want pets\).
1.3.6.7.6.5. Pro: People can have [virtual](https://onlineclock.net/bg/aquarium/) or [robotic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKt29IqmOUs) aquariums instead of real ones.
1.3.6.7.6.6. Pro: One could maintain wildlife's surrounding \(such as through cleaning up trash\), so they could be 'pets' that take care of themselves in their native habitat.
1.3.7. Pro: Veganism is [not just](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) abstaining from eating meat but also not using anything which uses animal products. This is an unrealistic standard as animal-based products are unavoidable.
1.3.7.1. Con: The [Jainists](http://softschools.com/facts/religion/jainism_facts/2730/) have lived for [millennia](http://www.religionfacts.com/jainism/history) on a vegan diet. They were hardly privileged \(as they believe "[possessions are an obstacle to liberation](http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/living/aparigraha.shtml)"\). So in reality, it is the lesser-privileged societies that are more vegan, rather than the other way around.
1.3.7.2. Con: Animal based products are not unavoidable: from food to clothes, we can get everything we need without exploiting animals. With the increasing number of vegans, vegan products are becoming increasingly available as well. A proof of this is the very fact that thousands of vegans around the world live their life without buying animal products.
1.3.7.2.1. Con: Animal products aren't just used in everyday life but also in [construction](https://www.networx.com/article/animal-ingredients-in-home-improvement-p) and mass production.
1.3.7.3. Pro: Many humans, especially those in poverty, live in [food deserts](http://www.foodispower.org/food-deserts/). They do not have easy access to the variety of vegetables, fruits, grains and supplements required to sustain a vegan diet as more privileged individuals do distance-wise. Vegan access will still be difficult logistically to work around if the world goes vegan.
1.3.7.3.1. Con: Access, logistically or economically, \(e.g. in deserts or in poor urban areas\) can change. These arguments focus on "All humans" in the current, non-permanent, conditions that some human beings happen to live in. We should rather focus on "should", we should still go vegan and strive for the technological or other changes that will make this possible due to the enormous benefits.
1.3.7.3.2. Pro: Lesser privileged individuals living in food deserts would need to [pay more](https://sendthewholebattalion.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/cost-difference.jpg) for their vegan products, which would become a hardship than those living near them.
1.3.7.3.3. Pro: Due to the inconvenience, people in food deserts get more [health issues](http://www.foodispower.org/food-deserts/). People there may still go for unhealthy items \(like alcohol and fast food\), even if those options are suddenly veganized, which makes removing these issues difficult.
1.3.7.3.4. Con: Most individuals that live in poverty are currently eating a majority vegan diet because it's all they can afford. [Look at figure 3 here, and others as a resource](http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8079e/w8079e0g.htm).
1.3.7.3.5. Con: Starches grow in practically any climate, and it's [known](http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/economic/faodef/fdef02e.htm) which types cultivate well in each region. Being such a universal crop, they're a solution for providing nutrition and variety to food deserts.
1.3.7.3.5.1. Pro: Although most people feel that crops can't grow near the poles, people who lived in the Russian taiga \(in Siberia, considered one of the most inhospitable places on Earth\) managed to grow their own [potatoes and rye](https://youtu.be/Gc-B-a5FrvU?t=485). So it's possible to grow crops virtually anywhere if looked into thoroughly enough.
1.3.7.4. Con: Even if animal products were unavoidable, veganism advocates [the reduction](https://www.thoughtco.com/is-there-no-such-thing-as-vegan-127588) 'as far as is possible and practicable'.
1.3.7.5. Pro: Veganism is a radical solution to the issues surrounding over-consumption of animal products in privileged societies. Humans should rather aim for moderation instead to make veganism more feasible for less privileged societies \(which is more difficult to do\).
1.3.7.6. Pro: A vegan diet means having to read absolutely everything on the ingredient list of absolutely everything that is not marked as vegan. This means also doing a research to find out if some unfamiliar ingredients are vegan or not. All this requires lots of effort and time.
1.3.7.6.1. Con: This is no different than any other diet. An omnivore reads labels thoroughly too, otherwise people wouldn't be so worried about issues like pesticides and grain/grass fed that it would need to be on the label.
1.3.7.7. Pro: The extension of [animal exploitation and by-products](https://www.thoughtco.com/is-there-no-such-thing-as-vegan-127588) in seemingly vegan items makes it almost unreachable.
1.3.7.7.1. Con: Vegans understand that 100% animal free living is currently impossible, but reasonable effort to remove impact on animals, within necessity, is still considered living vegan.
1.3.7.7.2. Pro: Many products people cannot go without contain [animal products](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/products-you-didnt-know-contain-animal-ingredients/) \(including [money](https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/11/vegans-are-pissed-that-britains-new-money-contains-meat/) in the UK\), and harming animals is almost [unavoidable](https://www.thoughtco.com/is-there-no-such-thing-as-vegan-127588).
1.3.7.8. Con: Eating meat continuously is even more difficult to attain, due to their ability to create crises \(economic, politically, socially, etc., like in [China](https://youtu.be/rLR9TEUMgM8?t=273)\). This is why the majority of individuals in developing countries \(like China and India\) would like plant-based alternatives instead.
1.3.7.9. Pro: What vegans typically consume may not be [truly vegan](https://www.kialo.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-vegan-2762.2204) and to be at that level would require removing so much or making such a large change that it would be nearly impossible to accomplish.
1.3.8. Con: The fact that there are many people alive today who don't eat meat should refute the claim that we cannot change.
1.3.8.1. Pro: Just because we have done something for a long time does not mean it is good.
1.3.8.2. Pro: When "the world" is defined to be the Indian subcontinent, a large fraction of society became largely vegetarian [a long time ago](https://www.indianchild.com/vegetarianism_in_india.htm), before free communication at scale as we have today.
1.3.8.2.1. Pro: The number of vegetarians in India is so large, that it would be the [third largest country](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-most-Indians-vegetarian) in the world today.
1.3.8.2.2. Con: Just because something happened in the past does not mean that it will happen again in the future.
1.3.9. Con: There is no quick fix for humanity's largest challenges. Abandoning progress altogether because of that would not make sense.
1.3.9.1. Pro: Even if the vegan diet isn't attainable for everyone, if we strive towards it when we can, then at least some \(albeit imperfect\) progress can be made and have more of an impact than if we do nothing.
1.3.9.1.1. Pro: A vegan world may be impossible, but a large majority is close \(like 95+%\) and would have close enough to the same effects as a completely vegan world - that it's close enough that we don't really have to do the impossible and be 100% vegan to attain the benefits we're looking for.
1.3.9.2. Pro: The change doesn't need to be all at once. Just eating less meat an starting to go vegetarian is a lot of [progress](https://s3.amazonaws.com/spoonuniversi-wpengine/spoonuniversi/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/foods-carbon-footprint-7-670x509.gif) in itself, so that everyone can get used to eat adjustment along the way until we all get there.
1.3.10. Con: Veganism, unlike what [most people believe](https://selecthealth.org/blog/2019/10/breaking-5-myths-about-being-vegan), is very [easy to adopt](http://features.peta.org/how-to-go-vegan/) and absolutely [feasible](https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-new/blog/cost-vegan-diet-international-perspective).
1.3.10.1. Con: On large societal issues, it is extremely difficult to [change](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_is_it_so_hard_to_change_peoples_minds) people's minds.
1.3.10.2. Pro: While it is hard to follow at first and takes a while to adjust, once one starts to notice [feeling better](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/health-benefits-within-one-week-of-eating-a-plant-based-diet/) from it, it will get easier.
1.3.10.3. Pro: If veganism were "too hard" no one could go vegan. Yet, [tens of millions](https://nichehacks.com/vegan-niche/) of people are vegan already and millions more will in just [2019](https://www.livekindly.co/nearly-3-million-people-vegan-2019-survey-finds/) alone. So with this possibility, the argument for the world going vegan is neither fallacious, nor irrelevant.
1.3.10.3.1. Con: Thousands of people are professional athletes but most people lack the desire or dedication to train to that level. So it is with veganism. Claiming that "some" can do it therefore "everyone" can do is it fallacious.
1.3.10.4. Pro: The most difficult part of being vegan is breaking non-vegan habits because taste is [habitual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect). Once these habits are broken, veganism is cheaper, easier, and \(in most cases\) healthier.
1.3.10.5. Pro: The level of difficulty people may have in adopting veganism is not fixed. Certain factors can make it more or less difficult.
1.3.10.5.1. Pro: Witnessing the suffering of animals farmed and slaughtered for food can decrease a person's motivation to eat animal products.
1.3.10.5.2. Pro: Greater availability of high-quality cheap vegan foods makes it easier to adopt and adhere to a vegan diet.
1.3.10.6. Con: If people perceive veganism to be hard to accomplish, then it is irrelevant how easy it actually is. People's perception on a topic is a factor that may influence their behaviour.
1.3.10.6.1. Pro: A [study](https://rdw.rowan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1753&context=etd) found that the performance of participants on a test was significantly better when participants were told that the test was easy compared to participants who were told it would be difficult.
1.3.11. Pro: Veganism has been likened to a [religion](https://medium.com/tenderlymag/is-veganism-a-religion-f195e1c23954). Given the inflexibility and resultant intolerance of some prominent religions, this comparison may suggest that veganism would be too rigid and intolerant to be practicable on a global scale.
1.3.11.1. Con: The label of "[vegan](https://plantifulalexandra.com/why-i-ditched-the-vegan-label/)" is optional. One could still eat in a way that minimizes animal suffering and pollution without any group membership.
1.3.11.2. Con: Veganism has many dissimilarities with religion, which allow it to potentially avoid the pitfalls mentioned.
1.3.11.2.1. Pro: Veganism is strictly about behaviors, rather than beliefs. Different vegans hold very different beliefs that lead them to be vegan.
1.3.11.2.1.1. Con: Veganism is described as a ["philosophy"](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) by many vegans. A "philosophy" is defined as a ["system of beliefs, values, and principles"](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/philosophy). Therefore, veganism is, at least partially, a system of beliefs, like religion.
1.3.11.2.1.1.1. Con: Multiple mutually exclusive philosophies entail veganism \(e.g. some forms of reincarnation, some forms of ethics, some rights-based theories\). Thus, there is no unified system of beliefs that encompasses all veganism.
1.3.11.2.1.1.2. Con: A philosophy is not a religion, as [religions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) require some sort of supernatural, transcendent, or spiritual element and veganism generally lacks this.
1.3.11.2.2. Pro: No element of veganism is taken on faith.
1.3.11.2.3. Pro: Veganism doesn't involve any deities, afterlife, or supernatural forces.
1.3.11.3. Pro: -> See discussion #30238: Veganism is a religion, not a philosophy \(definitions are in the info section of the discussion\).
1.3.12. Pro: One would need almost expert-level knowledge of nutrition and skills to apply those concepts on a daily basis to themselves to maintain a vegan diet. Not everyone has these these abilities and as such could fail to get adequate nutrition levels to truly sustain themselves on it.
1.3.12.1. Pro: In some sense, individuals on a vegan diet would, in a sense, be their own guinea pigs in experimenting on their own bodies at the expert-level when they aren't experts. This makes them put their put their health at stake if they fail, which is a risk they can't normally protect themselves against. Until they have capabilities or access to someone who does to monitor/protect them against these risks, which is unlikely for the unskilled to safely pursue veganism in reality.
1.3.12.2. Con: Just like how children are taught life skills \(like how to eat, dress, etc.\) when growing up, either by school, parents, or life, they could be taught how to properly balance their nutritional levels and have enough practice that they'll be at an expert-level quick and early enough to not incur potential damage.
1.3.13. Con: If everyone is vegan, those who find it difficult will have an infrastructure and support system to help them through the ups and downs of a vegan diet. So it may be impossible in this world, but not so much in a vegan society.
1.3.14. Pro: Real personal experiences and preferences in allowing veganism in their lives reveal that it's unrealistic and impractical for everyone in reality.
1.3.14.1. Pro: I have been working at an animal farm, and didn't become a vegetarian.
1.3.14.2. Con: I'm 53 and I've never eaten an animal. I've been a vegan for 32 years, have never been ill, never had a cold, and I'm fit and healthy. It's easy to avoid cruelty with so many alternatives to animal products available. If I can do it, so can others.
1.4. Pro: If all humans were vegan, animals would not be killed or made to suffer needlessly, which is the moral thing to do.
1.4.1. Con: Killing animals for food is natural for all predators, including humans, so cannot be immoral.
1.4.1.1. Con: If something being natural for all predators means it cannot be immoral, then killing out of greed and envy cannot be immoral, as it too is natural. Yet killing out of greed and envy is immoral.
1.4.1.2. Pro: If humans and animals exist on the same moral plane, then humans are simply another part of the natural food web with no more moral responsibility regarding predator/prey relationships than any other animal.
1.4.1.3. Con: -> See 1.1.6.1.3.
1.4.1.4. Pro: Nature doesn't follow the morals of vegans, so even if we follow vegan morals, not all creatures will. So we can only go so far with improving the morals of everyone in this world.
1.4.1.4.1. Con: Even if a bad thing cannot be stopped, it is better not to participate and perpetuate it oneself.
1.4.1.4.2. Con: It's an improvement nevertheless.
1.4.1.4.3. Con: Veganism does not set out to make non-human animals vegan, so the suggestion that veganism is lacking for this reason amounts to the perfect solution fallacy.
1.4.1.4.4. Con: In nature, animals kill each other without considering the life they end's significance. Nature's unethical in this regard, and we can't change how it is. However, if we don't want this to continue, then we shouldn't act like this \(as we can do something about ourselves\) to make it acceptable, just because it is in nature.
1.4.1.4.4.1. Con: Humans have the capacity and moral responsibility to act as more than merely animals.
1.4.1.4.5. Pro: Even if farm animals became wild or feral animals, killing will still happen, as a bigger animal would simply do it instead. That's how nature is: indiscriminate to killing and not caring about it taking place.
1.4.2. Con: Vegans have fallen into the [self enhancement](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-people-consider-themselves-to-be-morally-superior/) trap, thinking their life choice makes them more moral, justifying [unethical attempts](https://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/tvepisode/the-vegan-wars?cid=inbody:attending-a-pig-vigil-with-vegan-activists) to force their beliefs on others.
1.4.2.1. Con: Any adopted preference is bound to be considered preferable to its alternatives, regardless of the arbitration process or type of valuation that led there, for all people, so your preference would be cancelled out by an opponent's.
1.4.3. Con: The fact that something minimizes suffering does not entail that that thing is morally correct.
1.4.3.1. Pro: Mass extinction, in preventing suffering from being experienced, minimizes suffering, and yet it seems not to be morally correct.
1.4.3.2. Con: The important and neglected concept is needless suffering rather than any suffering. Some suffering happens that could be avoided, and such suffering is always immoral. Given that any scenario could be morally improved by eliminating needless suffering, it is moral to minimize needless suffering.
1.4.4. Con: The reproductive strategy that farmers evolutionarily impose on livestock \(a.k.a. [artificial selection](http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-are-benefits-artificial-selection)\) makes them more successful than their predecessors \(outliving them, with like [cattle](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/130401_beef) and [chicken/turkeys](https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/science/3384/chickens-closer-to-dinosaurs-than-other-birds)\) and perhaps any animal within their [taxonomic class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28biology%29) on Earth. This [mutualistic](https://sciencing.com/symbiotic-relationship-8794702.html) symbiotic relationship is beautiful, benefits both humans and farm animals, and there is no reason to destroy it.
1.4.4.1. Con: The relationship that has been created between humans and some species of animals has come at a cost to other animals.
1.4.4.1.1. Con: Properly managed animal farming can have huge benefits to biodiversity.
1.4.4.1.1.1. Con: Industrial farming is a [major cause](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/meat-eaters-may-speed-worldwide-species-extinction-study-warns) of loss of biodiversity.
1.4.4.1.1.2. Pro: Without using ruminant animals to mimic the herds we will [create deserts](https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change). Far more carbon is sequestered by the natural cycle of life then you ever will have global warming with cow farts.
1.4.4.1.1.2.1. Con: Ruminant animals can be allowed to live and reproduce in an area without then systematically killing them for their meat.
1.4.4.1.1.2.2. Pro: [Properly managed regenerative farming](https://holisticmanagement.org/) of livestock in brittle environments \(those prone to desertification\) is crucial for improving ecological systems and sequestering carbon. So even if we don't eat the livestock, we need them on the land.
1.4.4.1.1.3. Con: The vast majority of animal agriculture at the moment is not properly managed.
1.4.4.1.2. Pro: Non-livestock animals [die](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/wildlife-services-04-23-2018.php) or [go extinct](http://www.worldanimalfoundation.org/articles/article/8949042/186425.htm) just to keep the few remaining livestock species alive rather than vice versa.
1.4.4.2. Pro: Humans realize which genes and traits keep an animal alive and which do not. Without humans, the livestock's evolutionary line might not be here today.
1.4.4.2.1. Con: This evolutionary line is [optimized](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2016.0028) \(p.1\) for human needs, not for the animals', for example chickens that [can't support their own body weight](https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/chickens/chicken-industry/) because of their disproportionately large chests \(due to high demand for chicken breast\). We are not doing them a favor.
1.4.4.2.2. Pro: Since we have control over the reproductive processes of animals, then we can modify them to help them survive in conditions they never could without us.
1.4.4.3. Pro: Since animals and humans conflict for the same food source, it is more ethical to keep animals around than kill them in order to eat the single source of food. Humans might've realized that early on and went with this decision, which is why livestock breeding is present today.
1.4.4.4. Con: This is not an example of [mutualism](https://sciencing.com/symbiotic-relationship-8794702.html), since animals do not benefit from it.
1.4.4.4.1. Pro: Selective breeding methods in farming did not come without its issues, some of which [negatively impact the welfare of farm animals](https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3816969/modern-breeding-technologies-and-farm-animal-welfare.pdf).
1.4.4.4.1.1. Pro: Some of these practices were so bad that they led to emergence of veganism to begin with as well as the whole reason for this debate.
1.4.4.4.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.2.1.
1.4.4.4.1.3. Pro: [Male chicks](https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-happens-with-male-chicks-in-the-egg-industry/) are not beneficial to the industry \(they can't lay eggs\), so most of them are killed, sometimes immediately after birth.
1.4.4.4.1.3.1. Con: This wouldn't need to happen if male chicks are given to chicken farms to raise them for meat. Then chicken farms don't need to raise their own chickens for meat, thus saving lives without needing to go vegan.
1.4.4.4.1.4. Pro: Artificial selection for animal survival is only short-term. The further we go the more the animal and their survive gets bred out of their own existence \(as helping them is less about the animal and more for people\), as seen with [disappearing 'heritage' breeds](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/america-heritage-cows/537507/) along with ideas for veganism and cultured meat. So leaving animals alone to survive is best for them at this point.
1.4.4.4.1.4.1. Pro: Most domestic animals [cannot breed on their own naturally](http://web.archive.org/web/20190108231052/https://nifa.usda.gov/program/animal-reproduction), because they're bred for their food products, not reproduction. So the population would die out in a few decades once their lives are over without artificial insemination to prop it up.
1.4.4.4.2. Con: Animals benefit from being alive for a short period of time.
1.4.4.4.2.1. Con: Giving life to an individual in order to kill him soon after it is not beneficial.
1.4.4.4.3. Pro: The longer animals are around humans, the more they lose the traits that comprise them.
1.4.4.4.3.1. Pro: Animals and humans are not supposed to interact with each other, as animals have survival instincts to stay away from animals to not get eaten. Forcing this unnatural interaction breeds out an animal's fleeing survival instinct to not get eaten, which isn't beneficial to the animal - as they get eaten more easily then.
1.4.4.4.3.1.1. Con: Trying to eat animals keeps their instincts to not get eaten around, as these animals become aware that if humans can eat then, they should watch out for that in other animals too.
1.4.4.4.3.2. Pro: Humans will manipulate and alter animals to humanize and personify them, which makes the animals different than who they originally were. This is not beneficial, as they should keep their features.
1.4.4.4.3.2.1. Pro: If animals keep their features, humans can learn from their uniqueness. If changed, that may not happen.
1.4.4.4.4. Con: Humans benefiting from the symbiotic relationship matter more than the problems animals get if the pros outweigh the cons. In this case, it does.
1.4.4.4.4.1. Pro: If we worry about every little detail and 'stepping on everyone's' shoes, nothing would get done. It's just a price that gets paid to get the benefits we wouldn't have if we kept an animal's needs in mind.
1.4.4.4.4.2. Pro: Since humans benefited from the exchange, even if it took away from animals, at least it was not a waste.
1.4.4.4.5. Con: If we cannot have mutualism, which is a dually-positive [symbiotic relationship](https://sciencing.com/symbiotic-relationship-8794702.html), at least we can have a unilaterally positive commensalistic relationship where humans benefit without it harming animals.
1.4.4.4.5.1. Con: This is called exploitation, which is immoral.
1.4.4.4.6. Pro: The human-animal relationship seen in animal agriculture today is parasitism at the least and parasitoidism at its worst \([1](https://sciencing.com/symbiotic-relationship-8794702.html)\).
1.4.4.4.7. Pro: Animals did not choose to have the relationship, but are forced into it anyway, which already makes it not mutualism.
1.4.4.4.7.1. Con: Even if an animal species is forced into something, doesn't make it bad.
1.4.4.4.8. Con: Animals are given food, drink and shelter, which benefits them.
1.4.4.4.9. Pro: Regardless of this strategy, their lives remain controlled and compromised.
1.4.4.4.10. Pro: The relationship could never be mutual. Humans' reproductive program and strategies for livestock have, as a result of increased immunity and life expectancy of livestock, secured a longer-lasting supply of dairy commodities and animal fibres. If mutualism is defined as a "symbiosis which is beneficial to both organisms involved," then this relationship could not be mutual.
1.4.4.5. Pro: -> See 1.2.8.2.5.
1.4.4.6. Con: The same could be said about plants. If we abandon animals, we can dedicate our time more to the reproductive strategy of plants for agricultural purposes to create a beautiful mutualism with them instead.
1.4.4.6.1. Pro: Helping a plant's seeds \(like [dispersal and nutrition](http://lenanechet.com/fruitarians/definitions/58-fruits?highlight=WyJzZWVkIiwiZGlzcGVyc2FsIiwic2VlZCBkaXNwZXJzYWwiXQ==)\) grow into new plants helps them continue their circle of life for the survival of the species for mutualism.
1.4.4.6.1.1. Pro: Plants know this and developed edible body parts to be desirable to animals for millennia, but have been especially helped by [larger mammals \(like humans\) above all for larger fruit \(and later due to cultivation\)](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200227114450.htm). This helped both of us survive up to now.
1.4.4.6.1.1.1. Pro: Going fruitarian would let us connect to our past much better than the supposed 'paleo diet' does \(which is only for the past [few thousand years](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/paleo-diet-meal-plan-and-menu)\), as it precedes [10,000 years](https://www.shh.mpg.de/1642667/seed-dispersal?c=1606725).
1.4.4.7. Con: Determining what's 'good' for other animals is like playing god with them. This isn't our role, so we shouldn't be doing it.
1.4.5. Con: Veganism exploits and [kills more animals](http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659) than it saves.
1.4.5.1. Con: Depending on how [field deaths](https://philarchive.org/archive/FISFDI) are defined and quantified, some research on plant agriculture contests that plant agriculture kills more animals it saves \(p. 22\).
1.4.5.2. Con: Quantity is not a relevant argument in relation to the virtue of the principles, considering that the larger number results from intentionally protecting the plants from pest insects, and that the other source is the result of mass-scale economy prioritisation and always stands in relation to the crop-type. Since defending yourself \(and the extended necessities\) are not related to animal exploitation, they don't apply to veganism.
1.4.5.3. Pro: Insects, such as [bees and bumblebees](https://www.kialo.com/should-all-bee-products-be-banned-1233/1233.0=1233.1+1233.387), are used by the agriculture industry to grow crops.
1.4.5.4. Pro: People sometimes use animals for fertilizer, such as [fish](https://groundtoground.org/2011/09/09/fertilizing-your-garden-with-fish/).
1.4.5.4.1. Con: There are other available sources of fertilizer, e.g. plant-matter compost.
1.4.5.5. Con: A balanced, responsible, ethical and sustainable agriculture where no animal is killed exists.
1.4.5.5.1. Con: Agriculture on the scale needed to feed entire countries is not possible without doing it in the open air, where any wild animal and countless insects can wander into the cultivated area and be effectively hidden and, subsequently, killed during the farming process. Indeed, pollination requires animals as part of the process.
1.4.5.5.2. Pro: If people grow crops indoors hydroponically or aeroponically plus vertically, then they can avoid killing most, if any, animals.
1.4.5.6. Pro: In a vegan world, many animals that are currently farmed and subsequently eaten would either live in worse conditions or never get the chance to live at all. For a significant number of animals, a vegan world would be a worse outcome for them.
1.4.5.6.1. Pro: It's better for an animal to live a short life than no life at all, assuming any amount of life to be a net positive.
1.4.5.6.1.1. Con: A life in a factory farm is [worse](https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare) than no life at all.
1.4.5.6.1.1.1. Con: Factory farms are not the only farming practices which exist.
1.4.5.6.1.1.2. Pro: Factory farms make up a [majority](https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare) of the farming industry in the US and Canada.
1.4.5.6.1.1.3. Con: Vegans generally look at the net suffering, not existence versus non-existence. An animal that never gets to live cannot suffer; while an animal raised for food will experience a lot of suffering despite the small joy it might feel from being alive at all.
1.4.5.6.1.1.4. Pro: The assumption of net positivity is really based on perspective. The net is positive for some, not for all. From the farmer's perspective, that short life might be worthwhile, whether for food, job, or increased quality-of-life from interacting with animals. However, the short life is not worthwhile for the animal who has a quality-of-life that people would never want.
1.4.5.6.1.2. Pro: A farmed animal is given life, allocated land resources and food resources to support it.
1.4.5.6.1.3. Pro: A farmed animal does not have to live in constant fear of predation as it does in the wild.
1.4.5.6.1.3.1. Pro: This is true, because farms try to remove that fear. The process involves coaxing farm animals to not worry or not showing them their death until the end, if at all \(leading the animals to believe that people are just raising and not killing them\).
1.4.5.6.1.3.1.1. Con: There is lots of footage around that demonstrates how the killing is not always clean and painless. Animals fighting back, animals being insufficiently stunned and noticing how they're being lowered into a scalding tub alive, pigs who are suffocated in CO2 chambers and go into panic as they realize they're not able to breathe. The methods are far from perfect.
1.4.5.6.1.3.2. Con: Farm animals do live in fear, they just have been bred to not react to their predation. Domestic animals have aggression and other genetic traits taken out of them to prevent them from struggle and fighting their predators \(a.k.a. humans\).
1.4.5.6.1.3.2.1. Con: While animals might not be aggressive towards humans, their reaction to the conditions of being raised and bred by humans is still aggression and nervousness. That's why chickens get their claws and beaks cut off, so they don't start attacking each other.
1.4.5.6.1.4. Pro: A farmed animal can be provided with a life that is worth living. Free-range farming with an enhanced environment to stimulate the animals is possible, so that the animals' life is worth living.
1.4.5.6.1.4.1. Con: We are in no position to decide whether an animal's life has been "good enough already" for it to be killed as we can't measure happiness. This highly subjective criteria of happiness is not sufficient for deciding when to end an animal's life until we have a better understanding of how and what animals feel.
1.4.5.6.1.4.1.1. Pro: We wouldn't kill a dog that had a happy childhood at two years of age just because that happiness ought to suffice for a lifetime. We instead try to maximize the amount of happy years our pets can spend on this planet. We don't do this with livestock, we set an arbitrary limit on how much happiness they deserve so that it fits our needs \(eating them\).
1.4.5.6.1.4.2. Con: If we allow animals to live long and fulfilled lives before eating them, raising and killing them for food would be a lot less economically feasible, leading to a major drop in the availability of animal products \(or extremely increased prices\), which would in turn lead to an almost-vegan diet anyways.
1.4.5.6.1.4.3. Con: Free-range is an [elastic term](https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg?t=5m4s), meaning that the definition is arbitrary and can be changed. Likely free-range will not be [much better or more ethical](https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg?t=5m4s) than conventional farming \(if we don't account for the environment\).
1.4.5.6.1.4.4. Con: From the animal's perspective, there is no purpose to their existence. Even if they had the cushiest, nicest life, it would not be worth living for them \(unless they want to be meat for people, which would only happen in rare instances\). The only value that the animal's life is worth living for is for humans \(like the farmer\). The farmer only thinks the life is valuable to an animal because of their anthropocentric, predatory-perspective biases.
1.4.5.6.1.4.4.1. Pro: Animals wanting to be meat goes against biology. Biologically, animals want to survive and reproduce, not be some predator's meal.
1.4.5.6.1.5. Con: This statement assumes that adding livestock is net positive life. However, in reality, it is not. Adding their lives come at the sacrifice of others \(namely wildlife and humans - due to climate change\). This makes adding farm life net negative when factoring in all variables.
1.4.5.6.1.5.1. Pro: Since there are people starving currently, it makes sense to help those who exist now instead of adding other mouths to feed that have yet to come into existence.
1.4.5.6.1.5.2. Pro: The breeds humans "created" are optimized for putting on weight quickly \(so much so that many of them have severe mobility issues\) and have many of their natural instincts removed. Most of them would not stand a chance in the wild so it would not make sense to keep them around if we decided not to eat meat anymore.
1.4.5.6.1.5.3. Pro: Because of this reality, we need to make sacrifices and value one life over another. If we choose farm animals, then we are creating net negative life for wildlife and people. Because of this net negativity, livestock should not be added to this world, just based on the numbers of life added to this world alone.
1.4.5.6.1.5.3.1. Pro: Humans and wildlife are better choices to keep than livestock.
1.4.5.6.1.5.4. Pro: With climate change, even if we keep adding animals to this world to increase the number of lives on Earth, the end would leave to a net life of 0. If temperatures go high enough, no animal, including the farm animals added, will survive. That is why adding livestock does not make sense now, and most definitely does not in the future.
1.4.5.6.1.6. Con: If the livestock do not take up land, then it would get filled by other lifeforms \(plants, fungi, wild animals, and maybe even humans\). One lifeform's loss is another one's gain. Thus the addition of livestock is net neutral at most, but most likely net negative.
1.4.5.6.1.6.1. Pro: That short life is not worth the life lost on others affected by it. That means there is an overall net negative when factoring everyone in \(the life lost due to health conditions in humans and workers\).
1.4.5.6.1.6.2. Pro: Because nature does not like voids \(such as a lack of life\), we do not need to make effort to bring lives into the world \(as nature will take of that for us\).
1.4.5.6.1.6.2.1. Pro: Thus, it is a waste of resources to raise livestock just to keep them around when resources are not required to achieve the same effect.
1.4.5.6.1.6.2.2. Con: Nature is not concerned with the maximisation of positive conscious experience \(for humans and overall on Earth\), while raising animals could be considered a noble human endeavour \(by purposefully and artificially elevating total Earthly consciousness to a level that provides benefits\).
1.4.5.6.1.6.2.3. Con: There is arguably no such thing as "nature" which has any kind of intentions.
1.4.5.6.1.6.3. Con: The opportunity for moral good is maximised where life with the emotional capacity for joy/pleasure/fulfillment is allowed to thrive. Livestock should therefore take priority over plant and fungal life.
1.4.5.6.1.6.3.1. Con: This would be valid if animal agriculture created joy and fulfillment, but it mainly creates suffering.
1.4.5.6.1.6.3.2. Con: Plants can have joy/pleasure/fulfillment when allowed to thrive too. We should not let our quest for 'emotional capacity' get in the way of giving as much life freedom and quality-of-life they deserve, no matter how they enjoy it. Instead we should embrace and bring life that comes our way into this world unbiased \(a.k.a. no priority\) if we can bring them happiness.
1.4.5.6.1.6.3.3. Con: Just because we do not know at this moment that plants do not have an emotional capacity for enjoyment, does not mean that such enjoyment does not exist within them. We just do not know about it. We should err on the side of caution \(instead of assuming they don't and be wrong\) until we know better \(research is still in its [infancy](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant) in the plant neurobiology field\).
1.4.5.6.1.6.4. Pro: An increasing world population increases our spatial demands, so cities and villages could also expand if less farmland was needed. This is especially true for regions which suffer from severe lack of affordable housing.
1.4.5.6.1.7. Con: Putting animals in a [catch-22](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catch-22), where they lose either way \(having no life, or have a bad life and dying early\) are equally terrible and not worth it. Neither are good options nor real choices, as the chance for a good life is too small. The best option is a good, long life with a natural, uninfluenced death if we choose to breed them, not a short life.
1.4.5.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.
1.4.5.6.3. Con: There is no reason to believe that these animals would live in worse conditions in a vegan world. As for not getting the chance to live, it is arguably better than living a short and unpleasant life. Besides, not being born is not usually seen as a harm - on the contrary, we often practice birth control on ourselves and other animals because overpopulation is a concern.
1.4.5.6.4. Con: Breeding and raising animals for no purpose \(since we wouldn't eat them in a vegan world\) would come at some expense. So it's a worse condition overall than if we don't add more animals to the world that don't need to be here.
1.4.5.6.4.1. Pro: Going out of the way to raise lifeforms \(in this case, farm animals\) should not take place, as it comes at the expense of other lifeforms \(that are more valuable to this world than farm animals\).
1.4.5.6.4.1.1. Pro: Much of wildlife live in worse conditions or never get the chance at all to live due to animal agriculture. Thus, giving farm animals a chance at life should not be a justification for them, when we sacrifice another's life to make their living possible.
1.4.5.6.4.1.1.1. Pro: Biodiversity loss is well documented and will only get worse as people eat more meat.
1.4.5.6.4.1.2. Pro: If we keep farm animals around, we live in worse conditions or not at all, because they contribute to climate change. Humans should not raise animals at the cost of human life.
1.4.5.6.4.1.2.1. Pro: Climate change due to eating meat will make it much more difficult for humans to live \(by lowering their carrying capacity\). Thus, raising animals to make their lives better is not a worthy endeavor.
1.4.5.6.4.1.3. Pro: Whether or not we raise animals, the total number of animals on Earth should remain about the same. The only difference is that the animals are a different species.
1.4.5.6.4.2. Pro: It's not economic for us to do so.
1.4.5.6.4.3. Pro: The animals may still have a miserable life, even if we do this.
1.4.5.6.4.4. Pro: Breeding animals for no purpose just for them to live is pointless for humans. Unless it's in the best interest for humans to do something, it'll be inefficient to do something for no reason.
1.4.5.6.5. Con: That's only a temporary situation, the 'worse conditions', as when those animals are gone, then there are no animals around to have a chance to live in poor conditions.
1.4.5.6.6. Con: For the animals we bring into this world, many others don't get the chance to be born because of it. So we're not really helping more lives be born insomuch as deciding who gets to be born.
1.4.5.6.6.1. Pro: Farmers tend to kill wildlife in order to protect their livestock.
1.4.5.6.6.1.1. Pro: Since farming negatively affects wildlife, it is better to be vegan to take care of the life already in existence \(aka wildlife\) than to create new life just to take care of at the cost of another.
1.4.5.6.6.1.2. Pro: Vegans can care for animals in existence, like wildlife \(especially endangered species\), and allow them to live longer lives than before. People would just need to refocus their nurturing efforts on wildlife rather than farm animals.
1.4.5.6.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.4.3.2.1.
1.4.5.6.6.3. Pro: If we try to birth animals just for the sake of giving them life, then we are [playing god](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/play+God) in a way. However, humans shouldn't be in that position of responsibility, as we're not capable of that level of it.
1.4.5.6.6.3.1. Pro: If we raise farm animals, then we are messing with nature, as we are artificially breeding species that should not exist instead of letting their natural evolutionary path take place.
1.4.5.6.6.3.2. Pro: In an unlimited world, it may be true that if we don't raise them then they won't be given a life. However, in reality, there are tradeoffs and choosing help out one animal species would take our attention away from another, which is [speciesist](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/speciesist): a position we never really want to put ourselves in.
1.4.5.6.6.4. Pro: If we choose to breed animals to give them life, then it'll come at the cost of human life, due to the [carrying capacity of this planet](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/earth-carrying-capacity1.htm). So a world with livestock is a worse outcome for many humans that don't get to be born or live in worse conditions as an outcome of it.
1.4.5.6.6.4.1. Pro: Computer modelling indicates that the United States could support the largest human population on domestic production if everybody followed a [lacto-ovo vegetarian diet](https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/). A vegan diet came close, and provided much higher carrying capacity than the current baseline diet, but it did not maximize carrying capacity.
1.4.5.6.6.4.1.1. Con: While the vegetarian diet can maximize the use of all available land in the US, it is not necessary to use up every inch of land if you don't need it in order to sustain the population. This is like saying a school bus is better suited for transporting a family of six than a minivan.
1.4.5.6.6.4.1.2. Con: Many areas that can only be used as grazing land are barren because they have been exploited and overworked by human agriculture. Allowing these areas to be taken over by natural plants and forests again would benefit soil quality and biodiversity, there is no need to put animals on them for grazing.
1.4.5.6.6.4.1.3. Pro: Farming benefits from including [temporary grass leys in the rotation](https://www.adas.uk/News/grass-leys-in-arable-rotations), and the way to get the most return in useable protein from this grass is through dairy \([beef is another ballgame with abysmal amounts of protein/hectare produced](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-gram-of-protein-by-food-type)\).
1.4.5.6.7. Pro: All animals are eventually killed, whether by humans or other animals or nature. Meat producers [usually want](http://www.grass-fed-solutions.com/cattle-stress.html) animals to die quickly to prevent pain-associated chemicals from forming, as they spoil the meat. Thus, they use the most humane means possible.
1.4.5.6.7.1. Con: Then saying all humans eventually die, so those who kill humans are doing a favor by killing them in the most humane way possible is not wrong.
1.4.5.6.7.2. Pro: If comparing humane methods of dying to being eaten alive by a wolf or starving to death after you break your leg, or the other 1000 ways to die in the wild, eating farmed animals makes sense.
1.4.5.6.7.3. Con: Meat spoils anyway. Keeping meat fresher longer does not prevent people disposing it due to spoilage \(or assuming it is\). Meat preservation might be more humane than before, but not entirely \(as animals still get killed fruitlessly\)
1.4.5.6.7.4. Pro: A vegan society would be obligated morally to protect all animals from harm to/from others, as we already do this for humans.
1.4.5.6.7.4.1. Con: Humans are able to make moral decisions, animals aren't. That makes us responsible for our own actions, but not for the actions of wild animals. We don't enforce other moral standards on animals as we do with people in general \(e.g. we do not stop animals from raping each other, while it is illegal in most justice systems\), so it would be illogical to start enforcing our anti-killing moral standard on them.
1.4.5.6.7.4.2. Con: This is a slippery slope. The only moral obligation humans would have is to protect animals from other humans. Animals killing each other doesn't factor in this discussion.
1.4.5.6.7.4.3. Pro: It would not be consistent to expect humans to be vegan but leave the poor sheep to be slowly eaten alive by a wolf, or an omnivore animal \(like humans are\). We would eventually have to enforce "veganism" on all of the animal kingdom. What about carnivores in that case? This isn't a slippery slope, nor a reductio ad absurdum, it's consequence.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4. Pro: There are just too many animals in the animal kingdom to be able to enforce this enough to allow worldwide veganism to occur at all levels.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.1. Con: This is a [Reductio ad absurdum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) argument, as not every animal is able to go vegan, while we are.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.1.1. Con: Animals that are even carnivores can be fed a diet that would be acceptable for vegans. So it's not impossible.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.2. Pro: The closest to veganism on an animal kingdom level is to follow the practices seen in Tibet: instead of burying people, they feed [scavengers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial), so that they're full and don't eat small animals. Since there are so many people in this world \(deaths/yr: [56 mil](https://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/world-death-clock.asp)\), there's likely enough people to feed non-vegan animals so they can avoid the unnecessary consumption of others too.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.2.1. Con: In the future, we're likely to live longer and have less children. So it may not work when we get to that point.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.2.2. Pro: This number is only when we have a population of around 7.5 billion. The population keeps growing, so it'll only get easier to accomplish feeding all the animals that are carnivores, so they don't eat other animals.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.2.3. Pro: Buddhists believe it's a moral duty to prevent suffering, and they intervene in nature to limit animal suffering to follow their principles. If they \(since they follow moral principles\) believe this is the way to go, then if the rest of the world wants to reduce suffering, then we should learn from and possibly follow what they do too.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.2.4. Con: The shortcoming here is that it only applies to scavengers. We would need to find other methods to help out predators too.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.2.5. Con: Providing more food \(human corpses\) to scavengers will result in higher fertility rates and [more scavengers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equations), so the small animals will be on the table again.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.2.5.1. Con: Feeding scavengers could be spread out in a schedule so that a certain level of population is maintained. Then they won't produce at a rate faster than we can feed them at.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.2.5.2. Pro: Given the opportunity, the animal population will [grow](https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dynamics-of-predation-13229468/) beyond the population the environment can support.
1.4.5.6.7.4.4.2.5.2.1. Con: The schedule could be tuned to the ebbs and flows of population growth to prevent overshooting from occurring. Population growth phases are [well known](https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/239/flashcards/1466239/gif/logistics-14393EFEBA716B05DDF-thumb400.gif) and thus are easy to adapt to for the animal it's serving.
1.4.5.6.8. Pro: Some [forms of farming](https://foodanimalconcernstrust.org/what-is-a-humane-farm/) treat animals extremely well, euthanize painlessly and help them live longer and healthier lives than in nature. Humans actually help more than take by protecting, curing, feeding, nurturing, and prolonging them/their offspring's lives in exchange for meat that they won't need or use after their death.
1.4.5.6.8.1. Con: The fraction of the lifespan of farm animals compared to their maximum lifespan in captivity is much smaller than the lifespan of wild animals compared to their lifespan in captivity, e.g. the red deer lives 10 years in the wild and 20 in captivity [\(Red deer\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_deer), which result in a fraction of 0.5. For dairy cows this fraction is ~0.25 and for chickens raised for meat 0.02 \([hsi.org.au](https://hsi.org.au/go/to/70/farm-animal-welfare.html#.WtTolIhuaM8)\).
1.4.5.6.8.1.1. Con: The second source \(the one about actual livestock animal\) is not a scientific peer reviewed research, but a simple infographics. Secondly, it talks about "expected" life expectancy \(meaning how long can the body hold ideally\), not the realistic one. Between sickness, predators, natural agents and all of the sorts, they would not realistically live as long. In nature being elder is rare, humanity is exceptional. Furthermore, most mammals live longer, [healthier, and less stressed](http://ecology.com/2011/10/20/bambi-bessie-wild-animals-happier/) in captivity.
1.4.5.6.8.1.1.1. Con: Even though domesticated dogs do have a better life being cared for by humans than they would have as wolves in the wild, you wouldn't advocate killing dogs in their early adolescence to be eaten like cows or pigs are. Caring for an animal doesn't automatically make it morally permissible to kill it, it is perfectly possible and beneficial to both parties to let the animal live, as is the case with pets.
1.4.5.6.8.2. Con: Farming practices should not be described as "protecting" animals and "taking care of offspring" when it inevitably leads to the death of the animals and their offspring for the financial gain of the producer.
1.4.5.6.8.2.1. Con: Animals are protected and taken care, so those are the right terms to use, describing what is actually happening.
Death is inevitable anyway. Why should the meat go to waste?
1.4.5.6.8.2.1.1. Con: Breeding animals for the sole purpose of killing them is entirely avoidable. It's not like they just pop up out of nowhere, we're bringing them to this world in order to kill and eat them. This is not like making use of naturally occuring "meat sources" like roadkill.
1.4.5.6.8.3. Con: There's no such thing as ethical killing. If animals are taken care only for the purpose of killing them that is ethically wrong when there is an alternative.
1.4.5.6.8.4. Pro: The non-industrialized production and use of dairy products \(milk and eggs\) is not innately exploitative or unethical because domesticated animals do not suffer, but are are rather fed, nurtured, and protected by the humans that raise them in a mutually beneficial process.
1.4.5.6.8.4.1. Con: Just because it might be possible, in theory, to raise animals ethically, does not mean it is ethical to consume animal products right now, as we are far away from widespread implementation of these "humane" practices.
1.4.5.6.8.4.2. Con: If we swap the highly optimized conventional animal agriculture \(which relies on animals being treated like commodities in order to maximize profits\) for non-exploitative, "symbiotic" ways of raising and keeping animals, we would have to live on mostly vegan diets anyway, since these methods of obtaining animal products have much lower yields and take up even more resources.
1.4.5.6.8.5. Con: Even if a farmed animal is treated well, the amount of lives negatively impacted by its existence is still very high. Species who are going extinct because of deforestation to make room for farmland, animals killed in the harvesting of the many crops you need to feed a single animal. Even cats have become a burden on many ecosystems, threatening rodent and bird populations. You're exchanging one arguably good life for dozens of others.
1.4.5.6.8.6. Con: Caring for an animal and eating its flesh after it has died from natural causes would be ethical.
1.4.5.6.8.6.1. Pro: Since we actively kill the animals, animal agriculture is not kind or caring. You would not describe a person who breeds and raises dogs for food as an animal-loving person.
1.4.5.6.8.6.2. Con: The culture of eating animals promotes animal exploitation even if they died of natural causes.
1.4.5.6.8.6.3. Con: Strict carnivore animals have more use for flesh than humans.
1.4.5.6.8.6.3.1. Con: The circumstances might be such that there are no carnivores around who may make better use of the dead animal flesh, such as in urban areas.
1.4.5.6.8.7. Con: Humane farming is only marginally better than traditional animal agriculture, yet notoriously hard to implement because of backlash from the industry and consumers who fear [rising prices](https://www.ethicalfarmingfund.org/post/2018/05/30/the-truth-behind-the-price-of-humanely-raised-food).
1.4.5.6.8.8. Con: Selective breeding methods, which are inherent to animal farming, are immoral.
1.4.5.6.9. Pro: Domesticated animals, livestock and other animals that depend on humans would starve to death.
1.4.5.6.9.1. Pro: Without a top predator \(like humans\) to [selectively cull](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling.htm) the old and sick, entire populations \(species grouping \(like a herd\) or the total population of ecosystems\) might not survive \(due to starvation, etc.\).
1.4.5.6.9.1.1. Pro: If Texans didn't cull boars, they would overrun farms and destroy the livelihood of hardworking people.  Boars also kill people.  [A Plague of Pigs in Texas](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/)
1.4.5.6.9.1.2. Pro: Selective culling keeps populations healthy and reduces the spread of disease \(including inter-species ones like mad cow disease \([1](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling1.htm), [2](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/science/17obprey.html)\)\).
1.4.5.6.9.1.3. Con: Selective culling causes issues too.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.1. Pro: Once the weak are all hunted, people will resort to other forms of hunting \(like trophy hunting\).
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.1.1. Pro: In trophy hunting, the best-looking animals are hunted \(a.k.a. selected\) for a collection, which could unbalance the natural population \(by cutting out the best and worst, only the middle is left\).
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.1.2. Pro: This transition can become unethical.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.1.2.1. Pro: People can start hunting healthy animals out of desperation \(because all the animals that a weak, old, and ill are hunted out by selective culling and people are still in the habit of hunting\).
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.1.2.2. Pro: Once people transition, they might like trophy hunting more than selective culling \(especially if they used "selective culling" as an [excuse](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling.htm) to trophy hunt\). Then they would trophy hunt more than selective culling, which would decrease the positive benefits that selective culling provides.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.2. Pro: One example is that the more people hunt, the more that errors emerge due to recklessness and carelessness. This could damage culled and non-culled populations.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.3. Pro: Sometimes hunters selectively cull on purpose to cultivate [better breeds](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227324276_Selective_culling_of_Iberian_red_deer_stags_Cervus_elaphus_hispanicus_by_selective_monteria_in_Spain) for trophy hunting.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4. Pro: Selective culling does not leave nature alone, but instead [takes the place of natural selection](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling.htm). [Artificial selection](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227324276_Selective_culling_of_Iberian_red_deer_stags_Cervus_elaphus_hispanicus_by_selective_monteria_in_Spain) has no purpose \(as nature already does selecting\) but contains plenty of negative consequences.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.1. Pro: People place the value of one species over another \(by supporting the growth of a population through weeding out the weak\), which can disrupt the balance within the ecosystem.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.1.1. Pro: Then less predatory species can thrive to the point they [overpopulate and cause threats](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140305-culling-badgers-deer-bison-swans-ethics-conservation/) to their own and other species' populations.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.1.2. Pro: Humans may selectively cull species for cultivation rather than environmentalism, which potentially disrupts the ecosystem.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.1.2.1. Pro: If people spend money on their hunting gear \(camo clothing, guns...\), then the opportunity cost is not donating to saving endangered species \(like fighting poaching\). Endangered species suffer in this regard
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.1.3. Pro: The action of placing value of one species over another can negatively impact endangered species.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.1.3.1. Pro: When humans opt to selectively cull prey, they can usurp a natural predator \(which '[are more likely to be endangered](http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4532)'\). This competition with humans can endanger predating species, as humans remove the predators' main food source \(weak, old, and ill prey\).
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.1.3.2. Pro: People get rid of wildlife they believe are nuisances through culling \(without regards to whether they are endangered or not\). Through this process, they might unintentionally cull endangered species, and harm their population in the process.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.1.3.3. Pro: Even though selective culling may strengthen an endangered species' population by weeding out the bad, people may unknowingly reduce a population to virtual extinction, [numerically and functionally](https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/not-yet-gone-but-effectively-extinct/).
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.2. Pro: When this happens, there are negative consequences with no benefit \(just doing an activity with no purpose, like helping someone \(nature\) who already has a job that they can perform without help \(from hunters\)\).
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.3. Pro: The negative effects are: promoting hunting, wasting resources \(such as materials to make guns\), and polluting the environment \(like with gun shells\). Thus, the benefits outweigh the risks. Selective culling should not take place.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.4. Con: There are benefits to selective culling, such as improving the ecosystem around a person.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.5. Con: Some people may actually eat the meat from the animals they selectively cull. So while there is no ecological purpose, selective culling has an individualistic one.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.5.1. Con: The bad part about this is that the animal selectively culled may have had a purpose within the ecosystem that they cannot provide when taken out. Possibly, the animal would have been food for a predator or still provided protection to a population, even though it was at a disadvantage.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.6. Pro: Humans might have poor judgment on which animals should thrive within a population or not compared to nature and their assumptions can negatively impact populations.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.6.1. Pro: It is possible that some animals deemed as inferior really are at an advantage that can save the population. One example is that if people were selected for positive traits, then the ones that are [sickle cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease) disease carriers would be selected out. However, this trait protects them from malaria and thus are more advantageous than those without. Thus, removing them weaken's the capabilities of a population to survive.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.6.2. Pro: People might not be aware that removing one animal that is inferior might negatively alter the genetic pool of the population.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.6.2.1. Pro: Decreasing the genetic diversity of a population makes them more susceptible to getting wiped out.
1.4.5.6.9.1.3.4.6.2.2. Pro: It might be possible that the animal with inferior traits also carry beneficial ones on the same gene, but may not always be obvious, like [obesity and hair color in mice](https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/11/14/bbc-science-club-puts-animal-research-in-the-spotlight/)\). Wiping them out \(called [differential selection](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jwmg.21337)\) may remove unknown/not obvious essential traits crucial to a population's survival and may cause them to suffer or go extinct as a result.
1.4.5.6.9.1.4. Con: If everybody went vegan, the practice of forced reproduction would come to an end and the number of animals of species which today are "exploited" by non vegans, which today is artificially pumped up, would be drastically reduced, to a point that the "starvation of the herd" would not be an issue at all. Thus, culling is not necessary.
1.4.5.6.9.1.5. Pro: For the majority to go vegan, a [select few would likely selectively cull pests](https://www.quora.com/How-is-veganism-bad-for-the-environment) to keep the vegans from possibly breaking their philosophy to do that themselves.
1.4.5.6.9.1.5.1. Con: [Vector control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_control) uses [biological](http://www.placermosquito.org/programs/biological-and-physical-control/), [cultural](http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-8893/L-429.pdf), [physical/mechanical](http://www.placermosquito.org/programs/biological-and-physical-control/), and [legislative](http://www.mvcac.org/advocacy-and-legislation/legislative-and-regulatory-issues/) methods to prevent wildlife from becoming a threat. These methods can assist vegans in handling wildlife through either indirectly or not killing them.
1.4.5.6.9.1.5.1.1. Con: This claim and the sources linked are more viable for invertebrates than larger animals. Viable population control varies from species to species and many of these methods would not work for larger animals that are hunted for meat.
1.4.5.6.9.1.5.2. Con: PETA has a list of human pest control methods \([1](https://www.peta.org/living/humane-home/humane-bug-prevention/), [2](https://www.peta.org/living/humane-home/insects-may-bug-us/)\)
1.4.5.6.9.1.5.2.1. Con: Those sources only reference invertebrates, which are not generally hunted for food and thus does not refute entirely the original claim.
1.4.5.6.9.1.5.3. Pro: Citizen science-based monitoring projects \(through [mobile apps](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/8-apps-that-turn-citizens-into-scientists/)\) is a great way for vegans to [surveil \(like mapping\)](https://www.rentokil-pestcontrolindia.com/vector-control/mosquito-vector-control-methods/) populations and [respond](https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/testimony/Info_Testimony_AEN-WTL-EEP-AGR-WAL_01-24-18_VCB.pdf) to issues \(in a vegan manner\) before they become a large threat.
1.4.5.6.9.1.5.3.1. Con: Threats may still need selective culling, but at least this process can keep the extent that it's carried through minimized.
1.4.5.6.9.2. Con: A cow's typical life-span is 25 years. Cows used in dairy production are [exhausted](http://www.ad-international.org/farm_animals/go.php?id=120) and for most part killed after 4-5 years.
1.4.5.6.9.3. Con: Animals can fend for themselves. Human existence occurred after the first animals.
1.4.5.6.9.4. Con: Most of the animals dependent on humans are in that situation because humans put them in it. When all humans will be vegan there won't be any more animals bred for farms. All animals dependent on humans should be prevented from breeding.
1.4.5.6.9.5. Con: The number of domesticated animals would gradually but drastically diminish \(probably of several orders of magnitude\) as the practice of forced, artificial reproduction would be dismissed; the remaining "domesticated" animals would be taken care of by their owners.
1.4.5.6.9.6. Pro: If all humans became vegan, then all the animals on farms would be killed anyway as no-one is going to pay to look after them.
1.4.5.7. Con: Morally speaking, there is a huge difference between accidentally killing and killing on purpose. Not to mention the imprisonment, forced insemination, robbing their offspring, painfully living, etc, to which farm animals are submitted unlike collateral victims of agriculture.
1.4.5.8. Pro: It is impossible to separate vegan agricultural production from the use of [animal manures](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fJeCC3N9g), insect intrusion, and other interactions with animals. Keeping animal products off our plates is an artificial distinction.
1.4.5.8.1. Con: Veganism does not claim to be about "keeping animal products off our plates". It strives to reduce suffering where possible.
1.4.5.8.2. Pro: Some [mushrooms](https://listverse.com/2016/04/14/10-carnivorous-mushrooms-and-plants-you-didnt-know-about/) and plants \(like [some figs](https://animals.howstuffworks.com/insects/fig-wasp1.htm)\) are carnivorous and might be unknowingly consumed by vegans \(because they're too small, go unnoticed, etc.\) just because the end product is a vegan food item.
1.4.5.9. Pro: For a vegan diet, [more animals have to die](https://carnivoreaurelius.com/veganism-kills/) than for a carnivorous diet.
1.4.5.9.1. Con: A carnivorous diet kills far more animals than a vegan diet as it necessities more crop production to feed livestock in addition to slaughtering them.
1.4.5.10. Pro: Many animals are [killed in the production](https://www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/nnobis/papers/Davis-LeastHarm.htm) of plant-based food, including rabbits, mice, hamsters and other rodents, ground-nesting birds, deer fawn, snakes, etc.
1.4.5.10.1. Con: This isn't a case against veganism, but rather against harmful methods of growing crops. If crops are grown in a way that doesn't kill animals \(indoor, hydroponic farming; cultured plant cells, like cultured meat; etc.\) or if the crops that are most detrimental to local fauna are avoided, then this issue is negated.
1.4.5.10.2. Con: The harm from producing crops is offset by crops that double as wildlife reserves \(like [rice paddies](https://www.manomet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Rice-Fields-for-Wildlife-Folk-et-al-2016-compressed.pdf)\).
1.4.5.10.3. Pro: Farmers may take land away from wildlife to farm crops, which is why some species become threatened. One crop of particular concern is [palm oil](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18775582).
1.4.5.10.3.1. Pro: Even the [greenhouse gases rising from the deforestation](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/drivers-of-deforestation-2016-palm-oil#.WtQJHPkbPIU) contributes to animal suffering.
1.4.5.10.3.2. Pro: Even though these farmers are not profiting off of animal products \(which is not vegan\), they are profiting at the cost of animals by contributing to their suffering. This way, vegan crops contradict the vegan definition by contributing to the "cruelty of, animals for food"
1.4.5.10.4. Con: If more investment in production of plant-based food could be made, allied to cellular agriculture and the notion that animal life is as valuable, we as a global society would learn effective ways to produce animal products without slaughtering farmed livestock and sacrificing the animals that die in plant-based cultures.
1.4.5.10.5. Con: For raising animals, you need plants and while producing this you also kill the mice and snakes that live there.
1.4.5.10.5.1. Pro: Feeding animals and then eating those animals requires more crops than simply eating plants directly, which results in more mice, hares, snakes, insects etc. being killed.
1.4.5.10.6. Pro: Vegan agriculture most likely will not stop its heavy use of [pesticides, insecticides, and more animal-killing chemicals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/), because they make vegan products viable for consumer markets.
1.4.5.10.6.1. Pro: As the [article](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/) mentions, such pesticides cause more harm than the target pest, affecting other animals and possibly humans. This causes a lot of damage for animals that people do not even think of when envisioning vegan food.
1.4.5.10.6.2. Pro: Vegan food production, with these chemicals, may cause more net deaths to the ecosystem \(especially wildlife\) in an open loop compared to buying farmed natural predators \(like larger insects, such as praying mantises and ladybugs, to eat the smaller insects, like aphids\).
1.4.5.10.6.2.1. Pro: Buying farmed insects as natural pesticides decreases the death toll \(as insects cannot breed as easily\) as well as create a closed loop \(the insects eat other ones instead of just dying, so their bodily material goes back to the environment through the circle-of-life\).
1.4.5.10.7. Pro: The public will not likely see how their food is made, thus making regulation less likely upon the process than the final consumer product.
1.4.6. Pro: Wildlife gets killed in order to protect the meat industry.
1.4.6.1. Pro: In [Poland](https://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/EU-OKs-Poland-s-wild-boar-slaughter-to-fight-13526384.php), wild boars get approval to be killed to prevent swine flu from entering meat production, no other use or purpose \(like not for food, clothing\).
1.4.7. Pro: Animals have innate, individual rights, which are taken away when they are killed or made to suffer.
1.4.7.1. Con: Rights are a construct and are hence granted rather than innate.
1.4.7.2. Pro: A vegan society would recognize that every animal has a right to live.
1.4.7.2.1. Con: A vegan society would need to choose if they prefer predators to live, and grow plant-eaters to feed them, or let predators starve \(or kill all predators\) to let plant-eaters live well. The same amount of animals would be killed in both options. The most humane way is to reduce predators to an amount that can sustain in small population, and kill plant-eaters in humane way \(and use them as food\) instead of allowing them to be a killed in an inhumane way by predators.
1.4.7.2.2. Con: Rights are an explicit human construct that only humans can understand and, above all, consider in relation to other beings. Animals have naturally no right to live. We could give it to them, but rights can not be exercised without assuming duties. Animals are not guilty because they know no morality, so they are indeed in need of protection, but not legal subjects. For example: You can't react properly to an animal that violates another animal.
1.4.7.3. Pro: Animals have a desire to live.
1.4.7.3.1. Pro: Animals have a concept of what it's like to be free vs being held in captivity.
1.4.7.3.2. Con: Something's desire to live does not imply its right to live. This is the cornerstone of Darwinian survival - everything wants to survive but only the fittest will.
1.4.7.4. Pro: Some people believe animals see themselves as unique individuals.
1.4.7.4.1. Con: Some people do not agree that animals see themselves as unique individuals.
1.4.7.4.2. Con: Many animals [do not pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test) the mirror test as a measure of self awareness.
1.4.7.4.2.1. Con: The mirror test is likely a [very unreliable](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/what-do-animals-see-in-the-mirror/516348/) test of self awareness.
1.4.7.4.3. Con: This is an unsupported claim. "Seeing oneself as a unique individual" is vaguely defined and the fact that animals do so must be proved.
1.4.7.4.3.1. Pro: The opinions of some people should not be treated as a fact or a reason to ban everyone from eating meat.
1.4.7.5. Pro: Animals have the capacity to suffer.
1.4.7.5.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.7.4.
1.4.7.5.2. Con: Captive animals only suffer when they are aware of their wild counterparts.
1.4.7.5.3. Pro: Since pain is an [evolutionary advantage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4SnBCPzBl0&feature=youtu.be), animals have evolved to experience suffering.
1.4.7.5.4. Pro: We should assume that animals are conscious.
1.4.7.5.4.1. Pro: When we compare the human reactions signalling pain to reactions often [expressed by animals](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/do-animals-feel-pain-in-the-same-way-as-humans-do-10371800.html) when they possibly would feel pain, they are very similar.
1.4.7.5.4.2. Pro: Consciousness is a [barely understood](https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/consciousness/) concept, even in humans, but this does not mean there is no consciousness. Humans act on the assumption consciousness exists for themselves and others.
1.4.7.5.4.2.1. Con: Humans assume what we interpret from data and evidence. We cannot suppose animals are conscious if they don't show any evidence of it. So we shouldn't act on it until we know for sure.
1.4.7.5.4.3. Con: We can also assume that farmed animals have no concept of life outside the farm, and since they've never experienced anything but farm life, they would have no reason not to be happy with life on the farm.
1.4.7.5.5. Con: If cruelty/suffering is the argument, then acquiring meat from a hunter \(or similar instant killing method\) should be acceptable. In other words, you do not have to go vegan to avoid animal suffering - you just must be certain that your source of meat is cruelty-free.
1.4.7.5.5.1. Con: Killing an animal is not cruelty-free. The cruelty of killing extends to their family if they are part of raising it, as well as dying by having a short life and another being deciding their fate in life for them. Veganism does not create these abuses.
1.4.7.6. Pro: -> See 1.1.16.8.4.
1.4.7.7. Pro: We wouldn't like to be enslaved or killed by a more advanced alien civilization or a much more biologically complex alien species. So we shouldn't do this to animals.
1.4.7.7.1. Con: It is not the fact that humans are more advanced than animals, but the fact that humans are capable of rational thought and moral behavior while animals are not that is important.
1.4.7.8. Pro: The distinction between humans and animals from the [biological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_psychopathology) and [psychological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness) perspective is small.
1.4.7.9. Con: If one grants animals protections against being killed for food, one will surely also have to grant them rights regarding being killed for any reason; this would be a complicated process.
1.4.7.9.1. Pro: It is difficult to judge where to draw the line regarding certain animals' right to life. Some animals, for example, are disease-ridden, parasites, pests, dangerously aggressive, or otherwise pose a natural risk to human safety; deciding whether they can be killed without violating their right to life would most necessarily be an arbitrary and problematic process.
1.4.7.10. Con: We should strive to avoid killing animals and allow them a right to live, but is impractical to achieve those ideals in their entirety in reality.
1.4.7.10.1. Pro: To be legitimate, rights should be based on a real understanding of the thing to which they are given. Since many humans cannot empathise with animals, it cannot be said that they have rights.
1.4.7.10.1.1. Con: Animal rights should not be sacrificed just because of our own ignorance. Humans should become better people taking care of themselves to avoiding becoming an expense to innocent lives.
1.4.7.10.1.1.1. Pro: Even if humans lack the empathy needed to co-exist with animals right now, they could be [taught](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-couch/201810/can-empathy-be-taught) to empathize at a high enough level to never need to get to a point where the lack of it comes at the cost to animal rights.
1.4.7.10.1.2. Con: Many humans also cannot empathise with other humans, which does in no way mean that some humans dont deserve rights.
1.4.7.10.2. Pro: Even with attempts to preserve the rights to life and not suffering of animals, there an extent where suffering becomes unavoidable if it conflict with/come at the expense of others. At that point, animal rights don't have applicable rights anymore, just like how criminals get their rights stripped, as protecting them may cause worse overall suffering and is less more moral to do.
1.4.7.10.2.1. Con: The rights of prisoners have been forfeited due to misbehavior. We have no reason to consider animal rights forfeited unless they similarly do something to forfeit them.
1.4.7.10.3. Pro: People could accidentally kill animals easily without noticing it, like insects, or intentionally to prevent themselves from getting harmed \(like animals carrying illnesses to not get sick\).
1.4.7.10.3.1. Con: Killing insects accidentally is not immoral, just as accidental manslaughter is not immoral, inasmuch as one cannot choose not to do it.
1.4.7.10.3.2. Con: Killing cows and pigs is more immoral than killing insects.
1.4.7.10.3.3. Con: Killing invading animals that pose some sort of threat or risk to you may be killed because they pose some threat or risk to you. Animals that do not need not be killed.
1.4.7.10.3.3.1. Pro: Veganism does not preclude one's right to self-defence.
1.4.7.11. Con: Because of their nature, animals cannot have innate, individual rights.
1.4.7.11.1. Pro: Since animals do not possess [free will](https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/38-do-animals-have-free-will)(Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these.) in the same way as humans, they can't have any rights \([p. 538](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7714088/pdf/gqaa007.pdf)(A liberty right would indicate that an animal is free to engage in or avoid certain behaviours, in the sense of beingfree from a specific duty to do otherwise. Yet, an obvious objection is that animals are generally incapable of having any legal duties. Given that animals are inevitably in a constant state of ‘no duty’ and thus ‘liberty’, this seems to render the notion of liberty rights somewhat pointless and redundant in the case of animals, as it would do nothing more than affirm an already and invariably existing natural condition of dutylessness.)\).
1.4.7.11.1.1. Con: Infants don't know about or obey any laws, and yet have rights: harming or killing infants is against the law. Animals have or may be given rights in the same way.
1.4.7.11.1.2. Con: Animals may not have [positive rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights) due to an inability to meaningfully have duties, but they could still have [negative rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights), for which free will is not necessary.
1.4.7.11.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.1.3.2.
1.4.7.11.3. Pro: [No laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Prima_facie_rights_theory) have been enacted to protect these rights for animals either so no legal system is being undermined by this.
1.4.7.11.3.1. Con: There are [many laws](https://aldf.org/article/laws-that-protect-animals/) that protect the rights of animals \(e.g. not to be abused\).
1.4.8. Con: Morality is subjective.
1.4.8.1. Pro: Morality can be measured in relation to anything a person decides to base their morality on. As such it is subjective.
1.4.8.2. Con: Immanuel Kant's [1st categorical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative) imperative \(morality base\): would it be good if this action were applied to all within the class of things? If we don't think a pet deserves to die \(animal\), then any other animal doesn't deserve to die.
1.4.8.2.1. Con: A pet is an animal to which a person assigns value.
You don't want your pet killed, has you don't want your car destroyed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't destroy any car.
1.4.8.2.2. Con: Kant's moral imperative is a flawed one. There are many things that can be applied to all within the class of things that would have vastly destructive results if applied so, yet these things are not necessarily immoral. For example, homosexuality would be destructive if applied to the entirety of the human race yet it's not inherently immoral or harmful.
1.4.8.2.3. Con: Many omnivorous humans don't have the cognitive dissonance that makes them treat pets and farm animals differently. Pigs can be just as great pets and companions as they are a great food source, and horses can be a food source as great as they are companions. Pets are not usually eaten because of an emotional bond with the owner, not because their entire species is considered more undeserving of violence compared to others.
1.4.8.3. Con: This does not mean that morality is arbitrary: even in the most relativistic of all the possible ethical frameworks, consensus can be achieved on basic norms such as "unnecessarily harming of sentient beings is morally wrong" \(which is actually already a largely shared view point across vastly different cultures\).
1.4.8.3.1. Pro: People have converged on a number of laws including laws against cannibalism, murder, stealing and rape.
1.4.8.4. Pro: Vegan morality is inconsistent and hypocritical in valuing one life \(animals\) over another \(plants, fungi, and microbes\).
1.4.8.4.1. Con: Killing is bad, but inevitable for producing food. Thus, the smallest number of organisms ought to be killed for food. It is better to kill only the vegetation to feed a man than to kill the vegetation to feed a cow and then kill the cow to feed the man. By reducing intermediaries, veganism preserves the most life, even if all life is to be valued equally.
1.4.8.4.2. Con: Plants are not the same as humans, as they are autotrophs, and thus do not require the destruction of life in their consumption practices \(unless it's a carnivorous exception\).
1.4.8.4.3. Con: An "all or nothing" approach [is logically fallacious](http://www.academia.edu/21565174/Fallacy_All_or_Nothing) and hinders progression in the field of animal rights and ethics. Nowadays, social and political change is achieved through reforms, not revolutions. This means we don't need to have everything figured out before we can start working on improving and protecting animals' lives.
1.4.8.4.4. Pro: Scientific research into plant nervous systems is still in its infancy. Therefore, science cannot rule out that plants are living, feeling organisms like animals.
1.4.8.4.4.1. Pro: Experts in the field of plant neurobiology [disagree](https://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/062208/do-plants-have-brains)(Overall, the response from the plant neurobiologists on the matter of plant “brains” has been rather conflicted. Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh sug­gested that “plant neurobiology is a metaphor”—and nothing more. \[...\] But the biologists Franti.sek Balu.ska of the University of Bonn and Stefano Mancuso of the University of Florence strenu­ously argued for the literal existence of nervous systems in plants) on whether plants possess the equivalent of a brain and nervous system, suggesting that there is not yet a comprehensive enough body of evidence to prove or disprove brain-like function in plants.
1.4.8.4.4.2. Pro: Current research tends to rely on knowledge of the [animal](https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/plants-use-neurotransmitter-signal-stress/)("We've known for a long time that the animal neurotransmitter GABA \(gamma-aminobutyric acid\) is produced by plants under stress, for example when they encounter drought, salinity, viruses, acidic soils or extreme temperatures," said Dr Matthew Gilliham of the University of Adelaide.\n\nHowever, Gilliham told IFLScience that GABA “was thought to have a purely metabolic role”, with its production being a way for plants to cope with the stress better, rather than being a signaling mechanism. \[...\]\n\nThis wasn’t detected previously, Gilliham told IFLScience, because the protein that responds to GABA in plants is quite different from the one in animals. “If you look at the two proteins, they are very different in structure and identity,” Gilliham said. “But there is one tiny part that is similar, the bit that responds to GABA.”\n\nThe differences between the proteins open questions as to whether the usage of the same transmitter is a coincidence.) nervous system in order to try and prove or disprove the existence of a nervous system in plants. This cannot rule out the possibility of a very different, but no less real, plant nervous system.
1.4.8.4.4.3. Con: If meat eaters actually care about the suffering of the food they eat, it is safer to kill something that possibly does not feel pain over someone who definitely feels pain.
1.4.8.4.4.4. Con: Given current understandings of neurology, there are good reasons to think that plants cannot feel fear, pain, and suffering in the same way as can chickens, cows, and other animals.
1.4.8.4.4.5. Pro: Plants are more susceptible to abuse by humans than animals, as they have lesser capabilities in defending themselves and people not recognizing the harm that is occurring, yet might have similar reactions to harm. This concept is analogous to what happens to [vulnerable humans](https://psychcentral.com/blog/abuse-of-vulnerable-adults-why-does-it-happen/).
1.4.8.4.4.6. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.1.2.
1.4.8.4.5. Con: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.
1.4.8.4.6. Con: In reality, everyone has different moral standards for different species, not just vegans. The vast majority of people do not consider plants to be as morally significant as animals. If given the choice between cutting the stems of a dozen daisies or cutting off a dog's head, the average person will choose to kill the daisies without hesitation.
1.4.8.4.7. Pro: This is consistent with [Indigenous teachings](https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/what-is-the-relationship-between-indigenous-peoples-and-animals) which value the lives of humans, animals, bugs, and plants equally.
1.4.8.4.7.1. Con: No indigenous teaching can overrule the principle of minimal harm \(namely, that one should seek to minimize harm\). As veganism purportedly reduces harm over non-veganism, indigenous teachings cannot favor non-veganism over veganism.
1.4.8.4.8. Pro: Humans consider animal pain to be more important than plant pain only because of the former's proximity to their lived experience. This is an anthropocentric bias.
1.4.8.4.8.1. Con: This is a straw man argument since veganism does not argue that plant pain is less relevant than animal pain. It argues either that \(1\) veganism results in less overall plant pain, or \(2\) that the scientific literature on the subject is not extensive enough to conclude that plants feel pain at all, thus not rendering the harvesting of plants necessarily immoral.
1.4.8.4.8.2. Pro: The pain and suffering caused by [animal exploitation](http://thevegancalculator.com/animal-slaughter/), qualitatively and quantitatively, is nowhere near that of [plants](https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf), fungi, and microbes.
1.4.8.4.8.3. Con: Plants lack a central nervous system, and a brain to register the experience, and thus true awareness or sentience. The 'pain' response of plants could be equated to an autonomic response to stimuli. Suffering does not occur in the limbs, even if they are cut. [Suffering occurs, and is translated into suffering, in the brain](https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-pain-and-what-is-happening-when-we-feel-it-49040).
1.4.8.4.8.4. Con: This claim is actually support for the vegan position. [Since raising animals requires killing more plants](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-animal-feed-crops-meat-needs-destroying-planet) than if we ate them ourselves, reducing our animal use would necessarily lead to a significant reduction in the killing of plants, too.
1.4.8.4.8.4.1. Con: -> See 1.1.16.8.4.7.
1.4.8.4.9. Pro: Valuing animals above plants depends on their similarity to us and is therefore based on an anthropocentric bias. This defeats the implicit aim of veganism by assuming that humans are superior, which gives us reign to harm non-humans for our own benefit.
1.4.8.4.9.1. Con: -> See 1.2.4.9.1.
1.4.8.4.9.2. Con: Vegans do not value animals over plants simply because of their similarity to us. We value animals over plants because they have a higher level of sentience. In favour of your point, many vegans still recognise that humans have a higher intrinsic value than animals because we have higher sentience. However, it does not follow that we can harm animals for our own benefit. This is a non sequitur. Animals still have a value that ought to be upheld if possible.
1.4.8.4.9.3. Pro: A less anthropocentric veganism would value all life in parallel to human and animal life, rendering all human behaviour immoral by virtue of the way in which we treat bacteria, plants etc. in order to sustain ourselves.
1.4.8.4.9.4. Con: The different treatment of different beings can be explained by the level of harm that can be done to that being. Sentient beings can suffer more than non-sentient beings, because they can experience pain and certain emotions \([Dawkins, 2000](https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/40/6/883/187667)\).
1.4.8.4.9.4.1. Con: Certain simpler forms of fauna \(including many species of insects, [fish](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/faf.12010) and invertebrates\) cannot consciously experience pain, but merely a reflexive response to physical damage that they don't have the cognitive ability to perceive as distressful. By this definition of non-violence, an ethical omnivorous diet can still rely on consumption of such animals that cannot consciously feel pain or distress.
1.4.8.4.9.4.1.1. Con: "Only very recently have neuroanatomical studies revealed that teleost fish possess similar pain-processing receptors to higher vertebrates. Research has also shown that fish neurophysiology and behaviour are altered in response to noxious stimulation. . . . .  Whilst we agree with the author that fish are unlikely to perceive pain in the same way that humans do, we believe that currently available evidence indicates that fish have the capacity for pain perception and suffering."[Braithwaite2004](http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2004/00000013/A00101s1/art00012).
1.4.8.4.9.4.2. Con: Our understanding of "suffering" is also informed by how similar something is to us - the more similar to us, the more likely we are to recognize suffering when we see it. Morally consistent veganism must assume that a life can suffer whether we recognize the form of that suffering or not. As it is impossible to prove a negative, i.e. that plants *don't* suffer, then we cannot assume we have the ability to effectively limit harm.
1.4.8.4.9.5. Con: Vegans avoid eating sentient beings. Eating some life, like plants, is necessary as it is not possible to create a complete nutritional menu from inanimate sources without the inclusion of some kind of life form.
1.4.8.4.9.6. Con: While it is true that we tend to value more what is perceived as more evolved, and more [similar to us](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3336375/We-prefer-people-we-think-are-similar-to-ourselves.html). This claim seems to assume that anthropocentrism is antonym to veganism, which is not, [veganism is](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) just and only against explotation and cruelty towards animals, not against the evolution theory, biological categorizations or other scientific findings. Also seems to confuse Veganism with [Jainism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) which would fit as a "less anthropocentric veganism".
1.4.8.5. Pro: People can and will debate morality all day, but it will not make the issues of this world go away \(just delays working on them\). Instead of thinking about whether veganism is moral or not, it is better to just make a decision that is best accommodating for animals \(including humans\) as whole and move forward with following a plan.
1.4.8.5.1. Con: You cannot assert that we ought to accommodate nonhumans to prove that the idea that we ought to accommodate nonhumans is an objective moral truth.
1.4.8.6. Pro: What is moral relates to consensus.
1.4.8.6.1. Con: You can justify racism using that same logic.
1.4.9. Con: With ethical farming practices, one can be [vegetarian](http://animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc) and still prevent needless harm and death of animals too. One doesn't need to go vegan for that to occur.
1.4.9.1. Con: This is affirming the consequent \(a formal logical fallacy\).
1.4.9.1.1. Pro: It is true that "If veganism, then no animal suffering". That there are other diets that reduce animal suffering doesn't refute the claim.
1.4.9.2. Con: Ethical vegetarianism is not feasible in a corporate fashion. Corporations cannot be trusted to uphold the rights of non-human animals when their main motive is profit.
1.4.9.3. Con: Despite many believing its goods are merely 'by-products', the dairy industry can be as cruel - if not worse - than the meat industry.
1.4.9.3.1. Pro: The [male calves, considered 'waste', are killed](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/dairy-dirty-secret-its-still-cheaper-to-kill-male-calves-than-to-rear-them), as they can't produce milk, which is cruel.
1.4.9.3.2. Pro: Dairy cows are often [artificially impregnated](https://freefromharm.org/animal-cruelty-investigation/the-sexual-violation-of-dairy-cows-14-step-process-of-artificial-insemination/) in order to ensure a continuous supply of milk from the cows.
1.4.9.3.3. Pro: Some dairy cows are not [adequately treated](https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-information/animal-health-welfare/mastitis/working-arena-prevention-of-infection/) \(due to saving [costs](http://www.milkproduction.com/Library/Editorial-articles/Treating-mastitis-Balancing-cure-money-welfare-and-resistance/) or bad practice\), which creates [antibiotic resistance](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4092948/) in the herd.
1.4.9.3.3.1. Pro: Dairy cows regularly get [infections](https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/cows/dairy-industry/), such as mastitis, from their treatment on dairy farms.
1.4.9.3.3.1.1. Pro: This is in addition to the cruelty of cows being sick because farms create the environment that cause such infections.
1.4.9.3.3.2. Con: Issues with antibiotic resistance aren't exclusive to dairy farms, as it happens with growing crops \(like [apples](https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0209288-antibiotic-resistance-genes-in-soil-on-apple-and-dairy-farms.html)\) too.
1.4.9.3.4. Pro: Calves are [removed](https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/why-are-calves-separated-from-their-mother-in-the-dairy-industry/) from the mothers at birth in the dairy industry, which is cruel to both calf and mother.
1.4.9.3.4.1. Con: Long-term studies found [no evidence](https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/13-milk-myths-misconceptions-debunked)(Despite the controversial nature of the practice, long-term studies have shown separation from the cow does not affect social behaviours or growth of young calves.) that calves suffer behaviourally or developmentally when separated from their mothers.
1.4.9.4. Con: With vegetarianism, animals still suffer needlessly, even if it does do a lot of prevention in reducing it, which is why veganism is the way to go.
1.4.9.4.1. Pro: By not being vegan \(instead of vegetarian\), people still [support](http://www.fao.org/3/a-al736e.pdf) the needless death of animals.
1.4.9.4.1.1. Pro: To produce milk a cow is impregnated by force, made to carry young for 9 months, and their babies are taken away at birth. If male he is killed for [veal](https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/veal-byproduct-cruel-dairy-industry/), if female the cycle repeats. The cow goes through this process over and over until she is "spent" \(usually only a few years as opposed to a long 20 year life\) and then sent to slaughter.
1.4.9.4.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.4.1.3.
1.4.9.5. Con: Ethical farming practices are too [rare](https://www.plantbasednews.org/culture/factory-farms-study) for most people to avoid the unnecessary death and suffering of animals without being \(mostly\) vegan.
1.4.9.5.1. Pro: It's not possible to make sure ethical practices always or ever exist, because there's no way to get permission from an animal before exploiting them or verify an animal is taken care of even when it's no longer profitable to \(as there's an incentive not to\).
1.4.10. Pro: Because humans can thrive on a well planned vegan diet, there is no need to eat animal products. Lack of necessity makes the animal exploitation unethical.
1.4.10.1. Con: Just because something is unnecessary doesn't mean that thing is immoral.
1.4.10.2. Con: If everybody went vegan there would not be enough food for everybody or we would have to exploit soil, which would lead a mass extinction and starvation pretty soon \(a.k.a. [60 years](http://theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/topsoil-farming-agriculture-food-toxic-america)\). Eating meat is necessary for survival for a lot of people and countries.
1.4.10.2.1. Pro: Since we may only have [60 years](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/) left to farm if we continue our rates of soil depletion, any method to reverse this would be beneficial, even if it includes animals, at least in the short-term until the soil's restored.
1.4.10.2.1.1. Pro: Soil degradation can be [addressed with permaculture](https://www.permaculturenews.org/2016/10/13/restore-degraded-soil/).
1.4.10.2.2. Pro: Much of the crops are [already decreasing in nutritional value](http://theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/topsoil-farming-agriculture-food-toxic-america), so it won't be a nutritious source for food in the future. Meat may be what's left, as they can generate some of the nutrients lost in the soil in their bodies.
1.4.10.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.5.
1.4.10.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.16.8.4.
1.4.11. Pro: When most humans eat animals they do not consider the death that was required for their meal. If people had to consider the actual consequences of their diet far more would be vegan.
1.4.11.1. Con: This claim makes an assumption that is certainly false as many people eat the animals they themselves kill.
1.4.11.1.1. Con: Only 35% of hunters consider meat being the \(main?\) reason for hunting according to [Responsive Management](http://www.responsivemanagement.com/index.php) \(["Motivations behind hunting"](https://www.fieldandstream.com/sites/fieldandstream.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/import/2014/import/BlogPost/embed/meatstudy.JPG?itok=aCZxl-DC)\)
1.4.11.1.2. Con: Proportionnally speaking, this is not valuable. All people are not killers because some love to kill other humans.
1.4.11.2. Con: The idea that we should stop doing things on the basis of them being distasteful would have disastrous consequences for human civilization.
1.4.11.2.1. Pro: Jobs like sewage processing and high-rise building construction, which many wouldn't dare perform, are essential to human civilization.
1.4.11.3. Pro: Many people try not to think about what happened before eating their meal, partially because they do not want to consider the consequences. If those people were forced to see the process \(without blocking the thoughts in their mind\), they probably would eat less meat.
1.4.11.4. Con: Killing for food is a survival instinct shared by all species. We cannot say it is wrong for humans to kill for food when we don't mind other species doing it.
1.4.11.4.1. Pro: Humans are just another type of animal; we are only as morally obliged not to kill other species as they are morally obliged not to kill each other.
1.4.11.4.1.1. Con: Most of the animals killed for food, cows, pigs, chickens, do not usually kill humans. By the principle of reciprocity, we should therefore not kill them either.
1.4.11.4.1.2. Con: The distinction of human vs. non-human animal is arbitrary. We could just as well draw the line between Europeans|Africans, and use this distinction to justifiably kill the other.
1.4.11.4.2. Con: None of our other morals are derived from animals, so it doesn't make sense to do it in this context either.
1.4.11.4.3. Con: This is true in a survival context, which is not the case any more for the majority of humanity.
1.4.11.4.4. Con: Some people, such as Jainists, would prefer not to kill animals, even in extreme situations of survival \([p. 1502](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/pdf/ajas-25-11-1499-1.pdf)(Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival.)\).
1.4.11.4.5. Pro: Eating an animal might give a person just enough energy \(and time\) to survive and escape the horrible situation they are in.
1.4.11.4.6. Con: Eating meat is just one of many [skills](http://survivenature.com/forest.php) for surviving in the wild. A combination of other skills might help people survive situations better than just eating meat alone.
1.4.11.4.6.1. Pro: Eating meat could be pointless if one doesn't know how make themselves available for rescue, like making smoke signals or not getting lost.
1.4.12. Con: Plants have no less right to exist on Earth than humans or animals, which negates the vegan moral argument.
1.4.12.1. Con: Plants do not have rights, as only individuals can have rights and plants are not individuals.
1.4.12.1.1. Pro: Individuals are indivisible \(by definition\) yet plants may be divided \(e.g. by taking a [cutting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_\(plant\))\) and both parts survive happily. Thus, plants are not individuals.
1.4.12.1.2. Con: There are good reasons to believe that [group rights](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-group/) can exist.
1.4.12.1.2.1. Con: Group rights can only even potentially apply to groups of individuals. But unless plants are individuals \(or a collection of individuals\), group rights couldn't apply to them.
1.4.12.2. Pro: Plants may be [sentient](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-green-mind/201412/are-plants-entering-the-realm-the-sentient) as well.
1.4.12.2.1. Con: There are good reasons to think that morally relevant sentience requires a central nervous system. As plants lack a central nervous system, it would follow that plants cannot be sentient in a morally relevant sense.
1.4.12.2.1.1. Pro: Without a central nervous system, there could be no integrated perception or sense of self. As a sense of self as a locus of perception, action, and experience are required to be a moral subject, a central nervous system is plausibly necessary for something to be sentient in a morally relevant sense.
1.4.12.2.1.2. Con: Sentience is not an integral component of suffering. Aversion to unpleasant stimuli is sufficient to tell us that a particular organism would not willingly choose a given condition and we can thus determine whether our behavior has moral implications.
1.4.12.2.1.2.1. Con: The suggestion that one can infer willingness from aversion implies that plants have free will and intentionality, which is hard to sustain.
1.4.12.2.2. Pro: "An experiment, done in Mancuso’s lab and not yet published, found that plant roots would seek out a buried pipe through which water was flowing even if the exterior of the pipe was dry, which suggested that plants somehow [“hear” the sound of flowing water](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant)."
1.4.12.2.2.1. Con: Responding to stimulus is not sufficient to establish morally relevant sentience. All living things \(even bacteria\) respond to stimulus, yet not all living things are sentient in a morally relevant sense.
1.4.12.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.1.2.
1.4.12.2.4. Pro: Plants have [memory](https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants).
1.4.12.2.4.1. Con: Computers have memory, yet computers are not sentient in a morally relevant sense. Thus, having memory is not sufficient for being sentient in a morally relevant sense.
1.4.13. Con: Human morals only apply to humans because the main purpose of morality is to improve the survivability and quality of life of the human race. Therefore, animals don't hold a place in human morality unless it benefits humankind.
1.4.13.1. Con: Because moral consistency improves the survivability and quality of life of the human race, nonhuman beings hold a place in human morality.
1.4.14. Pro: The animals being slaughtered are often treated cruelly.
1.4.14.1. Con: Farmed livestock are protected from threats such as exposure, starvation, disease and predators. Protections that they would not have in the wild.
1.4.14.1.1. Con: Protection means nothing when we are their predators and their lives are compromised on restricted grounds.
1.4.14.2. Pro: Animals would not live in captivity or under unappropriate conditions.
1.4.14.2.1. Con: -> See 1.3.6.7.6.1.
1.4.14.2.2. Pro: Animals at farms are treated with the lowest priority when it comes to keeping lives safe during natural disasters. With [Hurricane Florence](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/hurricane-florence-millions-animals-condemned-drown-factory-farms/), millions of animals died in factory farms.
1.4.14.3. Con: It is possible to consume meat in an ethical way.
1.4.14.3.1. Con: Meat derived from living animals can only be consumed by excising it from the animals, which involves slaughter or mutilation, both of which involve unavoidable moral harms.
1.4.14.3.2. Pro: The meat production industry being unethical might imply that all humans should become vegetarian, but it does not imply that all humans should become vegan. The ethics of the meat production industry are only relevant to the ethics of eating meat, not the ethics of eating other animal products.
1.4.14.3.2.1. Con: -> See 1.4.9.3.4.
1.4.14.3.3. Con: The argument that the meat industry 'could be more ethical' is greatly a weak one because there is a big difference between 'could be' and 'will be'.
1.4.14.3.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.2.2.1.
1.4.14.3.4. Con: There is a moral argument to stop eating meat altogether \(as well as fish and animal derived products\): animals are sentient beings with a will to live, and it is therefore more ethical to avoid inflicting suffering to other animals, for the same reason as it is more ethical to avoid inflicting suffering to other human beings.
1.4.14.3.5. Con: Bans on eating certain meats to treat animals fairly \(like protecting endangered species\) create a new ethical issue in themselves: a legal justification for eating meat \(by sideswiping its ethical problems\) through [carnism](https://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/carnism-why-eating-animals-is-a-social-justice-issue/). This would make oppressive speciesism \(as it favors one species over another\) socially acceptable, which is avoidable if we go vegan.
1.4.14.3.5.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.11.1.1.
1.4.14.3.5.2. Pro: There is [no clear boundary](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/#MoraSignAnimMoraClai) between human and animal suffering, so humans should aim to reduce suffering for animals as they would for humans.
1.4.14.3.5.3. Pro: Carnism should not be legal, as it pushes for a social norm with a ['paradoxical mentality' that hinders justice in our food system](https://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/carnism-why-eating-animals-is-a-social-justice-issue/). Laws should work to serve justice, not hinder it, which is why just eating less meat is not enough.
1.4.14.3.6. Con: [Free range chickens](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/30/free-range-eggs-con-ethical) are still slaughtered, selectively bred for rapid growth to a point where for some, their legs can't support them, and kept in overcrowded barns. Free Range doesn't equal a happy life for the animal.
1.4.14.3.7. Pro: One can eat local meat and animal products without patronizing any products from the industrial meat production industry.
1.4.14.3.7.1. Con: Even locally produced meat involves slaughtering animals for their body parts, which is unethical.
1.4.14.3.7.2. Pro: There are multiple forms of agriculture and organic farming with animal welfare in mind. [Biodynamic agriculture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture) is one example.
1.4.14.3.7.3. Pro: Certain forms of privately maintained animal rearing are not harmful, for instance [keeping chickens in backyards](https://backyardpoultry.iamcountryside.com/chickens-101/how-to-raise-free-range-chickens/).
1.4.14.3.7.3.1. Pro: Many meat animals in the third world are part of the family and protected from surrounding predators and only killed when there is need. Animals can be killed individually with minimum pain.
1.4.14.3.7.3.2. Con: Many chickens have been bred to produce more eggs than is healthy for them to do so. Their calcium can become [severely depleted](https://mikethechickenvet.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/bones-shells-and-hen-health/), and it is difficult to feed them enough to overcome this.
1.4.14.3.7.3.3. Con: Most backyard chickens are hens \(females\). Most of the cocks \(males\) will have been killed at hatching.
1.4.14.3.7.3.4. Con: Most backyard chickens are still killed for food once they stop laying frequently.
1.4.14.3.7.3.5. Con: It is not feasible to support the world on this small scale farming, thus by not being vegan humans are forced to turn to crueler methods.
1.4.14.3.7.3.6. Con: Even in supposedly ethical free-range backyard farming where chickens are not harmed, other animals might be: chickens are omnivores so may consume or otherwise impact insects and other wildlife where they are kept, and thereby disrupt the native ecosystem/food chain there.
1.4.14.3.7.3.6.1. Pro: Chickens are also non-native, as they're domesticated and only is semi-part of the ecosystem. So every time they enter it, they could disrupt its natural life cycles \(like food chains, but also resources, like nitrogen\).
1.4.14.3.7.4. Con: The majority of consumers prioritize the cost and ease of meat rather than the ethics of production. Just because a minority choose to carefully select their produce, does not compensate for a majority who do not.
1.4.14.3.7.5. Con: Some situations make that impractical. For instance, industrial meat from developed countries is cheaper than local meat in developing countries, hindering its local meat production if sold there. Economic imbalances can then happen, forcing markets to resort to selling factory over local meat and consumers no choice but to buy factory meat instead.
1.4.14.3.7.6. Con: It would not be possible for everyone to eat as much meat as they want without using the meat processing industry.
1.4.14.3.7.6.1. Pro: Free-range, grass-fed beef would require even more land \([30% more](http://web.archive.org/web/20150320015635/http://extension.psu.edu/animals/beef/grass-fed-beef/articles/telling-the-grass-fed-beef-story)\) than grain-fed. If the switch occurred in the US, the gain in land would be size of [3/4 of Texas](http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127/htm). This take more land away from wildlife, which would be a detriment to their livable space.
1.4.14.3.7.6.1.1. Pro: "Free-range, grassfed" cattle is "responsible for [80 percent](https://foodrevolution.org/blog/the-truth-about-grassfed-beef/) of Amazonian deforestation".
1.4.14.3.7.6.1.2. Pro: Grazing has many [other negative effects](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7439/94722c6326433a10044898eabd0bcab3f4b3.pdf) on ecosystems when cattle are raised in them.
1.4.14.3.7.6.1.2.1. Pro: Grazing [damages](https://ifm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Conroy-et-al.-2016.-Impact-of-cattle-access-.............pdf) river systems.
1.4.14.3.7.6.1.3. Pro: Following the articles, grass-fed beef creates 500% more greenhouse gases and uses 35% more water than grain-fed.
1.4.14.3.7.6.1.3.1. Pro: If all the world’s pasture lands were returned to natural vegetation, it would [remove greenhouse gases](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/19/why-you-should-go-animal-free-arguments-in-favour-of-meat-eating-debunked-plant-based) equivalent to about 8 bn tonnes of carbon per year from the atmosphere, according to [Joseph Poore at Oxford University](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth).
1.4.14.3.7.6.1.4. Pro: What makes this is worse is that grass-fed beef is [trending](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/grass-fed-beef-is-just-as-bad-for-the-environment-as-grain-fed/) over grain-fed due to people wanting to eat healthier foods.
1.4.14.3.7.6.2. Con: This claim is an argument that less people should eat meat, or that people who eat meat should eat less, it does not in any way support the argument that "All" humans should be vegan.
1.4.14.3.8. Pro: There is even [a list](https://certifiedhumane.org/whos-certified/) of humane producers.
1.4.14.3.8.1. Con: -> See 1.1.6.1.4.1.1.
1.4.14.3.8.2. Pro: One can have sympathy for animals and treat them accordingly despite the fact that they are consigned to produce milk, eggs, or meat for human consumption.
1.4.14.3.8.3. Con: The abuse, exploitation, and killing of a sentient being is never ethical.
1.4.14.3.8.3.1. Con: You can eat many animal products without killing the animal in question, such as milk, eggs, and cheese.
1.4.14.3.8.3.1.1. Con: -> See 1.4.9.4.1.1.
1.4.14.3.8.3.1.2. Con: -> See 1.4.4.4.1.3.
1.4.14.3.8.3.2. Con: -> See 1.4.12.2.
1.4.14.3.8.3.3. Con: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.1.3.
1.4.14.3.8.3.4. Pro: Killing an animal should be considered murder.
1.4.14.3.8.3.5. Con: There is no abuse in those farms. There is no exploitation if we are giving them everything they need for free in exchange for their meat after a paniless death. Killing a sentient being can be ethical in case of Self Defence, Research \(without lab rats we would all die\) and finally Nutrition, given how important it is for Biology and given that a human baby and a Sponge are not on the same level. A Sponge can't even feel pain. So Animal life is not on the same level.
1.4.14.3.9. Pro: Scientific advancements are making ethical alternatives increasingly possible for those wishing to taste meat without creating moral harms.
1.4.14.3.9.1. Con: Lab-grown meat is not derived from living animals, but just from tissues, and thus wouldn't be meat derived from living animals.
1.4.14.3.10. Pro: Animal product consumption is not inherently unethical, only causing undue or excessive suffering is. If the industry can be improved to minimise/eliminate suffering, then there is no ethical basis behind condemning it.
1.4.14.3.10.1. Con: Raising animals for slaughter and killing them painlessly is not ethical.
1.4.14.3.10.1.1. Pro: Even if a murder victim didn't suffer, the murder is still immoral.
1.4.14.4. Con: -> See 1.4.14.3.7.3.
1.4.14.5. Pro: This cruelty reflects poorly on humanity \(like treating animals poorly is part of what encompasses being a human is\). We should not represent this cruelty and should avoid it to not be associated with it.
1.4.14.5.1. Pro: Meat production is [barbaric](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34541077) in its cruelty. We live in the 21st century and should not have such uncivilized tendencies in society today.
1.4.14.5.2. Pro: Cruelty should not be on a meal plate or part of keeping us alive.
1.4.14.6. Con: It is not in the meat industry's interest to treat animals cruelly; mistreating cattle results in poorer quality meat.
1.4.14.6.1. Con: Not all forms of cruelty result in inferior quality meat.
1.4.14.6.2. Con: The reduction in quality of the product is offset by an increase in quantity produced, resulting in a net increase in revenue. As revenues drive production, meat producers are often incentivized to use cruel methods, even if it somewhat reduces the quality of the product.
1.4.14.6.3. Pro: Slaughter areas are designed to keep the cattle calm so they don't pump adrenaline through their veins souring the meat.
1.4.14.6.4. Pro: -> See 1.4.14.3.7.
1.4.14.7. Con: -> See 1.4.7.5.5.
1.4.14.8. Pro: When the demand for animals goes down \(like with the coronavirus\), farmers [just kill all the animals](https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/eggs-chickens-farmers-livestock/2020/04/21/id/964044/). Unnecessary killing of animals and the wastefulness that comes with it wouldn't take place in a vegan world.
1.5. Con: Veganism is not feasible for lesser privileged societies or individuals.
1.5.1. Pro: If someone isn't capable of going vegan, then it isn't immoral for them not to.
1.5.1.1. Con: A person's inability to adhere to a moral principle \(i.e. veganism\) does not affect the validity of the principle.
1.5.1.1.1. Con: Whether or not a moral principle \(i.e. veganism\) may be valid, if there are contravening circumstances precluding a person from following such a principle then that person is not subject to the principle.
1.5.1.1.1.1. Con: If the people who cannot adhere to the principle are not subject to the principle, the argument that some people cannot adhere to the principle is not a valid argument against the original claim.
1.5.2. Pro: The restrictive nature of a vegan diet may exacerbate eating disorders or be triggering for those who suffer from them.
1.5.2.1. Pro: The restrictive nature of veganism can mask the element of [control](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/veganism-orthorexia-dieting-anorexia-food-bloggers-diet-vegans-a8537211.html) associated with the majority of eating disorders.
1.5.2.2. Pro: Veganism was found to [be prevalent](https://www.taylorwolfram.com/veganism-eating-disorders/) among those with eating disorders.
1.5.2.2.1. Pro: Research in one clinic highlighted that the number of people in treatment for eating disorders who say they follow a vegan diet was [four times](https://www.newbridge-health.org.uk/eating-disorders-help/veganism-and-eating-disorders/) that in the general population.
1.5.2.3. Con: [A study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29579513/) found no link between [orthorexia nervosa](https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/learn/by-eating-disorder/other/orthorexia) and veganism or vegetarianism, instead citing ethical reasons as the drive behind these diets.
1.5.2.4. Con: This stereotype can [get in the way of](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/veganism-and-eating-disorders-is-there-a-link/2020/07/15/0f5fbd44-c6cd-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html) vegans who do have eating disorders securing treatment.
1.5.2.5. Con: If all humans is vegan, veganism will be seen as normal and will not be perceived as restrictive.
1.5.2.6. Con: Most people already have sharp moral objections against eating say, dogs, and thus don't consider a dog-less diet a restrictive one. Veganism only asks a person to extend that moral courtesy to animals that look different. It's unclear how that is restrictive.
1.5.3. Con: -> See 1.5.1.1.
1.5.4. Con: If veganism was so easy to adopt, we'd value it less, and loyalty lies in appreciation.
1.5.4.1. Pro: Veganism not being feasible might be an advantage, because once they go vegan, then they're more likely to stick with it - as they met their challenge, and it would seem an honor/prize to keep at the end.
1.5.5. Con: A balanced vegan diet is cheaper than a balanced diet that includes meat.
1.5.5.1. Pro: Veganism is more economically feasible for less privileged societies than feeding, raising, butchering, and refrigerating livestock.
1.5.5.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.6.
1.5.5.1.2. Pro: The [poorer people are, the more vegan they are](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/may/30/food.china1) and the wealthier they get, the [more](https://slate.com/technology/2014/05/meat-eating-and-climate-change-vegetarians-impact-on-the-economy-antibiotics-global-warming.html) meat they eat.
1.5.5.1.2.1. Pro: India has a vegetarian population of [~30%](https://www.dawn.com/news/1206096), of which the majority of this group is the most impoverished \(as most are in the [North](https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06/14/how-india-eats_n_10434374.html), where it tends to be [poorer](https://scroll.in/article/810717/india-is-slowly-cleaving-into-two-countries-a-richer-older-south-and-a-poorer-younger-north)\). This suggests that veganism can be an affordable diet for societies. It is a myth that an omnivore diet is cheaper.
1.5.5.1.2.2. Pro: Staple vegan foods, like rice and beans are [very cheap](https://greatist.com/health/44-healthy-foods-under-1), and in fact are a staple for much of the 'less privileged' societies in the world.
1.5.5.1.2.2.1. Pro: China's demand for meat [has increased as it got richer](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/may/30/food.china1). [This trend follows in other developing countries](https://www.voanews.com/a/decapua-farm-animals-29mar12-144898655/179917.html). The poor still eat rice and vegetables, [which the WHO identifies as a more efficient use of resources](http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index4.html).
1.5.5.1.2.2.2. Pro: This is revealed in 'vegetarian' India, where the average poor diet is vegan: [70% millet, 20% rice, 10% wheat](http://everydayutilitarian.com/essays/how-do-the-extremely-poor-live/), where the [wealthier South](https://scroll.in/article/810717/india-is-slowly-cleaving-into-two-countries-a-richer-older-south-and-a-poorer-younger-north) is up to almost [99% meat-eating](https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06/14/how-india-eats_n_10434374.html).
1.5.5.1.2.3. Con: Poverty is also [strongly linked](http://www.uniteforsight.org/nutrition/module5) to malnutrition, so it does not necessarily follow that veganism is better or more feasible for the world's poorest people.
1.5.5.1.2.3.1. Con: If it was nutritionally or economically better to be an omnivore they wouldn't be vegan, they choose veganism because it's the best in their social-economical situation, were they wealthier they wouldn't be malnourished.
1.5.5.1.2.3.2. Pro: If many poor people already eat vegan, yet many poor people also struggle to get adequate nutrition, this raises questions about how well their vegan diets \(in light of their limited resources\) are capable of meeting their nutritional needs.
1.5.5.1.2.3.3. Pro: The extremely poor tend in [India](http://everydayutilitarian.com/essays/how-do-the-extremely-poor-live/) to be heavily malnourished on a vegan diet, as what's affordable doesn't give them adequate nutrients to survive. So vegan diets aren't adequate for everyone to live on.
1.5.5.2. Pro: Some [NGOs](https://ffl.org/food-yoga/why-vegan/) who fight hunger across the world only provide vegetal foods. Main reason is the lower cost.
1.5.5.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.6.
1.5.5.2.2. Pro: [A study](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19320248.2015.1045675?journalCode=when20) comparing a healthy diet that included meat, and a healthy diet that did not, found that the non-meat diet saved over $700 a year.
1.5.5.2.2.1. Con: -> See 1.2.3.11.3.2.
1.5.5.2.2.2. Con: This study is geographically constrained to the USA, so it cannot be used to support the claim that a vegan diet is cheaper everywhere.
1.5.5.3. Pro: Vegan foods are either the most expensive or the cheapest foods in the world per lb, whereas animal products fall into the middle zone. This makes vegan food more beneficial for everyone: more expensive for privileged individuals and cheaper for less privileged ones.
1.5.5.3.1. Pro: The [Italian White Alba Truffle](http://most-expensive.com/foods) is the most expensive food in the world at over $48,600 per lb.
1.5.5.3.2. Con: Even though vegan foods are the most and least expensive foods, some animal products are also really expensive and cheap, thus allowing everyone to enjoy it. Thus, expense should not be an indicator in deciding whether the world should go vegan or not.
1.5.5.3.3. Pro: The cheapest nutrient/source of sustenance is [water](https://greatist.com/health/44-healthy-foods-under-1), which is vegan and practically free.
1.5.5.3.3.1. Con: Water alone is not enough to sustain the human body for long periods of time, which would not be an adequate substitute for animal products.
1.5.5.3.4. Pro: The cheapest food, salt, is vegan, at under [12 cents/lb](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/morton-50-lb-bulk-non-iodized-table-salt/102SALT50.html).
1.5.5.3.4.1. Con: Salt is very unhealthy
1.5.5.3.5. Pro: The cheapest food with protein is soft wheat pastry flour, at a little over [21 cents/lb](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/soft-wheat-premium-pastry-flour-50-lb/104SWAN.html).
1.5.5.3.6. Con: It is unethical to buy expensive vegan products.
1.5.5.3.6.1. Pro: Buying expensive vegan products encourages inflated prices which is unfair to people on lower incomes who cannot afford them.
1.5.5.3.6.2. Pro: The money wasted on overly expensive vegan products should be rather used to achieve far greater good, such as preventing unnecessary human suffering and death by purchasing cheap mosquito nets to prevent malaria, diarrhoea treatment, or restoring eyesight in cases of preventable blindness.
1.5.5.3.6.2.1. Pro: People dying of preventable diseases and living with curable blindness because wealthy vegans choose the tainted and relatively negligible good of buying overpriced vegan foods, rather than the greater good their wasted money could have achieved.
1.5.5.3.6.3. Pro: Buying overpriced vegan products promotes a harmful self-satisfied illusion of virtue.
1.5.5.3.7. Con: The cost of a food has no relationship with how beneficial it is to eat.
1.5.5.4. Con: Experimenting to find the right vegan foods can be expensive, as it is inefficient and wasteful in finding what to eat \(for instance, the cost of throwing out food that does not taste nice or turns out not to be vegan is pricier than just buying what is known to work\).
1.5.5.4.1. Con: Diets need not be changed suddenly. One who wants to become vegan can gradually incorporate more vegan foods until they find a complete vegan diet they like.
1.5.5.4.2. Con: Recipes and recommended diets can be made available to those new to veganism to reduce or eliminate experimentation.
1.5.6. Con: -> See 1.2.4.
1.5.7. Con: Veganism is currently unfeasible for society due to the lack of demand and its exclusivity. If veganism were to become the norm, it would become more accessible for the less privileged.
1.5.7.1. Pro: [Consumer demand](https://www.amazon.com/Growing-Up-Green-Child-Bestselling/dp/1416541241) could drive veganism advancements through changing and removing industries. One pivotal event displaying this is the replacement of [whale oil with kerosene](http://www.petroleumhistory.org/OilHistory/pages/Whale/whale.html).
1.5.7.1.1. Pro: If people stay healthy through participating in a vegan diet, then they could [avoid consuming medications](http://www.americanvegan.org/howtobevegan.html) made from animal products or involved animals in their research and testing.
1.5.7.2. Pro: If everyone was vegan, the cost of vegan products would become much more affordable.
1.5.7.2.1. Pro: Product costs are largely a function of supply chains and resource rarity \(as well as supply and demand\). Current supply chains have evolved to support an omnivorous \(largely meat focused\) food system. The benefits they receive from the established system would apply to any dominating diet, which would equally create price reductions for veganism if it became the dominant diet.
1.5.7.2.1.1. Pro: The evolution of supply chains for an omnivorous and meat-focussed food system creates benefits for these diets from the established infrastructure. These benefits include incremental \(efficiency\) improvements, as well as a higher demand that creates economies of scale.
1.5.8. Pro: Animal agriculture allows societies and individuals to use their resources more efficiently and thrive as a result. In a vegan world, they may not.
1.5.8.1. Pro: Less fertile lands or natural reserves cannot be used for crops production, but they can support animal life. In some harsher biomes, especially arid or cold, human life would be much harder without pastoralism, hunting and/or fishing. In a vegan world, these people would be more dependent on imported food, also losing the option to sell animal products to afford their vegan diet.
1.5.8.1.1. Pro: Nomadic people grow livestock instead of crops, because of their traveling lifestyle. Livestock provides more resource efficiency than vegan foods do for them.
1.5.8.2. Pro: Crops' co-products and plants that [cannot be eaten by humans](http://www.cast-science.org/download.cfm?PublicationID=278268&File=1e30d1bf7a7156ce24b3154cc313b587d97bTR) can convert to animal feed.
1.5.8.2.1. Con: Inedible \(to humans\) feed is not a viable option. Livestock [cannot compete with energy](http://www.globalharvestinitiative.org/2013/10/livestock-and-feed-conversion-food-producers-or-food-thieves/) for inedible food, which forces them to compete with humans for their edible food supply.
1.5.8.2.2. Pro: The benefits to the conversion are valorizing and preserving certain environments \(such as [grassland](http://w3.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/grass.htm)\) that crops cannot and allowing more diverse crop rotation \(which resolves [tillage damage](https://www.agweb.com/article/cover-crops-and-cattle-are-cash-naa-chris-bennett/)\).
1.5.8.2.2.1. Pro: This can provide a double benefit, as less grains would need to be grown for livestock, which preserves grasslands even more \(by not cutting them down for crops\).
1.5.8.2.2.2. Con: In the real world, this is not the case. [Overgrazing](https://www.desertusa.com/desert-food-chain/food-chain-6.html) due to population gains of cattle in grasslands is a real threat to the land's decline.
1.5.8.2.2.3. Con: Vegan food have the same capabilities as livestock to achieve these goals.
1.5.8.2.2.3.1. Pro: If people ate foods that they normally are not accustomed to \(such as native plants\), then they could preserve environments to without resorting to livestock \(just like how Native Americans acquire [chia seeds and acorns](https://www.kcet.org/shows/tending-the-wild) while the preserving the wild\)
1.5.8.2.2.3.2. Pro: Plants \(like [oats](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/crop-rotation-and-the-future-of-farming.html)\) can reverse damage caused by livestock with crop rotation.
1.5.8.3. Pro: If you were born in a agriculturally hostile territory you couldn't rely on food other than meat to sustain yourself.
1.5.8.3.1. Pro: Farming animals is often the only means available for farmers, e.g. farmers use animals to store energy for harsh winters or where the terrain doesn't allow for intensive crop farming.
1.5.8.3.1.1. Con: Intensive farming is a particular case. This way of doing agriculture is not even tenable. Its not the only way to produce crops.
1.5.8.3.1.2. Con: Storing energy for winters is possible without livestock, by using a granary.
1.5.8.3.2. Con: Dedicated efforts for self sufficiency are possible even in hostile environments. Regional specialties can arise in this way.
1.5.8.3.2.1. Con: The link is more or less a propaganda of the government there. It might be true, but there is no hard data presented. Also, it is worth taking note that the country is self sufficient only in the current distribution of food, which includes animal nutrition sources. It is not suggested anywhere that it might have the same self sufficiency and could ensure a proper diet with a population which would eat only vegan food.
1.5.8.3.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.7.3.5.1.
1.5.8.3.2.3. Pro: One of the most densely populated locations in the world, as 710 square km and a population of 5 million, [Singapore is difficult place to grow food.](https://permaculturenews.org/2014/07/25/vertical-farming-singapores-solution-feed-local-urban-population/) Yet, they found a way to grow crops using vertical farming. Where there's a challenge, humans manage and seem to find a way. We will just need to use innovation if we apply these principles to the entire world.
1.5.8.3.2.4. Pro: Kurdistan is [self sufficient in fruit and vegetables](http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/070820172), meaning it would be likely to be able to support itself in a vegan world.
1.5.8.3.3. Pro: The Inuit Population solely relies on fish, since they live in the harsh conditions of the Arctic lands. It is obvious that diets should be adapted to the different environments. Exceptions will always persist.
1.5.8.3.3.1. Con: With climate change, the exception will come true. By then, there should be enough fertile land and melted water for Inuits to grow crops.
1.5.8.3.3.2. Con: Inuits also eat [roots and berries in the summer](https://www.reference.com/world-view/inuit-eat-2644379260f2c387), but could save them for the wintertime if they go vegan.
1.5.8.3.3.3. Con: Greenland \(which does comprise of Inuits\) is [owned and subsidized by Denmark](https://youtu.be/tBd-1PnqagE?t=133), so to get the population there to go vegan, it would just get further assistance from Denmark to do so, which should be feasible, since they already help out.
1.5.8.3.4. Con: -> See 1.3.2.3.2.
1.5.8.3.5. Con: If people move to where it is possible to eat vegan, then they wouldn't rely on meat to do so.
1.5.8.3.5.1. Con: Moving isn't feasible for everyone \(too costly, incompatible with cultures, people are used to where they live, etc.\).
1.5.8.4. Con: The conversion of crops into meat is a very inefficient process \(both time and resources\) compared to the direct consumption of plant matter. [\(Eschel, et al. 2016\)](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6b01006)(Applied to 320 million Americans, the beef-to-plant shift can save 91 million cropland acres \(and 770 million rangeland acres\), 278 million metric ton CO2e, and 3.7 million metric ton Nr annually. These nationwide savings are 27%, 4%, and 32% of the respective national environmental burdens.)
1.5.8.4.1. Pro: Meat accounts for [17% of global calorific intake](https://www.economist.com/feast-and-famine/2013/12/31/meat-and-greens), while using twice the amount of resources including land, water, and feed.
1.5.8.4.1.1. Pro: [36%](https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed) of all crop calories grown are used to feed animals, which then we eat. There is a huge [loss of energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_\(ecology\)) in this system.
1.5.8.4.2. Pro: All proteins and necessary carbohydrates originate from vegetation. [Most of the energy](https://sciencing.com/define-secondary-consumer-5530919.html) and unprocessed minerals come from producers, they are consumed by primary consumers and then humans and other carnivores consume the secondary consumers. Primary consumers are simply middlemen to help circulate energy, in accordance with the [rule of 10%](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/energy-transfer-ecosystems/)(On average, only about 10 percent of energy stored as biomass in a trophic level is passed from one level to the next. This is known as “the 10 percent rule”...), secondary consumers obtain at most, 0.1% of the initial energy provided from vegetation.
1.5.8.5. Pro: Use of animals in farming initially made use of underutilized fibres, indigestible to humans, and still does so \([1](https://qknowbooks.gitbooks.io/jhs_1_science-farming-systems/mixed_farming.html)\). Use of animals saves human labour \(and therefore nutritional requirements, fuel use etc\) and produces edible food by fertilizing arable land, simultaneously consuming unwanted and underutilized resources in locations where crops useful for humans cannot be readily grown \([2](http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/rural_environments/farming_rural_areas_rev2.shtml)\). Thus, the use of animals is not only more cost effective for agrarian communities, but often necessary.
1.5.8.5.1. Con: This argument is not valid for the present time as ecosystems such as [rainforests](https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html) that hold vast nutrition for humans are cut down to make space for animal farming.
1.5.8.5.2. Con: Our demand for meat requires us to then grow these crops, which then takes land and resources to do. Wild animals graze and consume these resources, so they do not go unutilized, they support an ecological cycle.
1.5.9. Pro: Many consumers and producers would suffer economically without animal agriculture.
1.5.9.1. Pro: [1/7](http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM) of the world population's income depends directly or indirectly on livestock. Without alternative production methods a vegan world would result in more poverty in rural areas.
1.5.9.1.1. Con: The world population still needs to eat, the 1/7th of the world population will work on crop production/distribution.
1.5.9.1.1.1. Con: Not all arable land of the world is suitable for crop production and [a lot of the by-products of human food production are not edible](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013) for humans, but for ruminants.
1.5.9.1.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.9.3.1.
1.5.9.1.1.1.2. Con: Arable land unsuitable for crop production is ideal for reserving as natural ecosystems, which are critically needed in most regions.
1.5.9.1.1.1.2.1. Pro: The pasture could instead be used to grow trees and lock up carbon, provide land for rewilding and the restoration of nature, and growing bio-energy crops to displace fossil fuels. \([www.theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/19/why-you-should-go-animal-free-arguments-in-favour-of-meat-eating-debunked-plant-based)\)
1.5.9.1.1.1.3. Con: Other vegan foods can be grown on non-arable land \(like [chlorella](https://www.alver.ch/)\) if crops can't grow there.
1.5.9.1.1.2. Con: They do this already to produce the feed for livestock, so they won't lose their jobs. It's the ones who rely on the next steps and work with the animals that'll be at the most risk. Those skills may not be transferable enough to attain this ideal.
1.5.9.1.2. Pro: In Catholicism, fish is exempt from the "no meat during lent" rule because of communities that relied on fishing for food.
1.5.9.1.3. Con: "more poverty of the rural areas" - as you have described an area to be in poverty then that should include all living species within that area, of which include thousands of animals. The argumentation here is based on animal life having no value but commodity, and human life is the only one of importance. 'Poverty' can come in many forms and be applies to many lives.
1.5.9.1.3.1. Con: Human life in human societies is still closely linked to animal life of all kinds. The less poor people are, the better they can treat all kind of animals. In addition, the evidence is not provided whether animals in nature or in human custody are able to better meet their needs. It varies from case to case.
1.5.9.1.4. Con: Raising livestock makes poverty worse in rural areas than crops do, because livestock is less sustainable, ruining the land quicker until there is not much left, leaving people with no other means to keep their jobs going. It forces them to leave where they live, forcing them into more poverty yet. So a vegan world would result in less poverty than more.
1.5.9.1.4.1. Con: -> See 1.5.9.1.1.1.
1.5.9.1.4.2. Con: Livestock is a crucial part of farming and even the indirect role for food security and income should not be underestimated. E. g. the provision of manure for fertilization + draught power plays an important role in producing crops for human nutrition. Especially for small farms \(\> 2 ha\) - [which operate up to 12 % of agricultural land worldwide](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15002703) - the access to the market for crops, arable land, fertilizer and crop protection would be a main requirement to convert into exclusive crop production.
1.5.9.1.4.3. Con: Livestock farming is not fundamentally unsustainable, the [diversity in production systems and feed materials](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013) is high.
1.5.9.1.4.3.1. Con: If everyone goes vegan, livestock could be released into the wild, where they would flourish from the amount of foliage available. However, this can cause them to overshoot their carrying capacity, and would be combined with a shrinking of it due to humans competing with them for the same plant resources.
1.5.9.1.5. Pro: [Livestock products provide one-third of humanity’s protein intake​](http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf). In addition, the [protein quality](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013) of animal products is high. The [biological value](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013) due to the amino acid pattern is advantageous. These benefits are difficult to replace globally.
1.5.9.2. Pro: Countries would be less self sufficient, and thus more vulnerable to global market and diplomatic volatility, in a vegan society because they would depend more on imports.
1.5.9.2.1. Pro: Many vegan staples are [imported from across the globe](https://goodfoodcentre.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/where-veganism-gets-food-security-wrong/). Items such as quinoa, coconut products, palm oil products, avocados, and tropical super foods are yearlong staples for many vegans.
1.5.9.2.1.1. Con: Quinoa, coconut, palm oil and avocado are not necessary to include in a vegan diet. Environmentally conscious vegans can instead rely on plants that are fit for their country's climate, reducing the need for import.
1.5.9.2.1.2. Con: The [Vegan Society](https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/general-faqs)(The palm oil and palm timber industries are rife with very bad practices.) is very critical toward the use of palm oil, so calling it a vegan staple is inaccurate as many vegans try to avoid it.
1.5.9.2.1.3. Con: 'Super foods' is not a term specifically used for vegans. The Dutch dietary association gives fat fish as example of a super food, in their critique on super foods, which is obviously not vegan. Vegans can easily live without a fad called super foods.
1.5.9.2.1.4. Con: Quinoa, coconut products, palm oil products, avocados and tropical super foods are not necessary in a vegan diet; they are used for variation and their taste, but that is how they are used by any demographic.
1.5.9.2.1.5. Pro: People would have less choices if food only grows in their country, as not every part of the country might be suited for growing vegan food.
1.5.9.2.1.6. Con: Imported food tends to be less ethical than local food.
1.5.9.2.1.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.5.10.3.
1.5.9.2.1.6.2. Pro: People are more likely able to know, see, and act on local food if there are ethical issues with it \(such as cutting into endangered species' land\).
1.5.9.2.1.6.3. Pro: Foods imported to the US tend to utilize animals more in the process \(such as [monkeys to get coconuts](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/19/448960760/monkeys-pick-coconuts-in-thailand-are-they-abused-or-working-animals)\).
1.5.9.2.1.6.4. Pro: Foods imported could have negative associations, such as ['blood avocados' and their relations to drug trafficking](https://www.thefix.com/blood-avocados-and-their-ties-drug-trafficking).
1.5.9.2.1.6.4.1. Pro: This means that money that could go towards peaceful local foods with community end up in the hands of corrupt individuals and organizations \(such as cartels in the article\).
1.5.9.2.1.7. Con: Imported foods tend to be less healthy than local foods.
1.5.9.2.1.7.1. Pro: Imported foods to the US contain more [pesticides](https://are.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/emeriti/roberta-cook/articles-and-presentations/imported-vs-domestically-produced-fruits-and-vegetables-there-di/).
1.5.9.2.1.7.1.1. Pro: Countries with [less restrictions](http://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/pesticides-in-imported-produce/) create greater pesticide issues.
1.5.9.2.1.7.2. Pro: Imported foods contain or grown around chemicals that are banned in the country taking in the imports.
1.5.9.2.1.7.2.1. Pro: One example is US importing foods from China \([1](https://www.davidwolfe.com/10-foods-china-plastic-pesticides-cancer-causing-chemicals/), [2](http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2014/04/09/truth-about-tilapia.html), [3](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38957549)\).
1.5.9.2.1.7.3. Pro: Imported foods use more food miles, which means those foods are not allowed to ripen on the plant as much as local foods.
1.5.9.2.1.8. Pro: These imported foods, such as [quinoa](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/17/quinoa-threat-food-security-improving-peruvian-farmers-lives-superfood), tend to keep alive ancient cultural foods around in the ever-changing globalized world.
1.5.9.2.2. Con: Living sustainably and in an environmentally-friendly way is not specific to the vegan or non-vegan life-style. Buying more seasonal and local produce is possible for vegans and non-vegans.
1.5.9.2.3. Con: A pressurised economy is a benefit as it can lead to a more positive change in society.
1.5.9.2.3.1. Pro: People would need to get innovative, both on the grower side \(figuring out which vegan foods can be grown locally that people can eat\) and the consumer end \(choosing foods that are not imported\).
1.5.9.2.4. Con: This will not be an issue, as vegan food is grown in [practically every country](https://static.secure.website/wscfus/1897311/uploads/crops_map_fao.png) \(even [similar crops](https://www.targetmap.com/ThumbnailsReports/17660_THUMB_IPAD.jpg) are grown worldwide, so there are no worries about nutritional imbalances\).
1.5.9.2.5. Con: As people become vegan, their new values align with making more local choices in the process.
1.5.9.2.5.1. Pro: People within countries benefit for a less globalized economy, because their wages will not be cut by a lower competitor of a country with impoverishing wages.
1.5.9.2.5.2. Pro: One of them is eco-friendly choices. This means that vegans will make countries more self-sufficient by choosing local produce \(like at farmers markets\).
1.5.9.2.5.2.1. Con: Non-vegan options are also available at farmers markets too.
1.5.9.2.5.3. Pro: To avoid cheap labor for goods, people might seek out local artists for innovative faux products \(like clothing and accessories\).
1.5.9.2.6. Con: In the future, countries are going to be more self-sufficient, as the trends are heading towards there anyway \(mostly independent of veganism\). This means that a vegan society will be more local than the previous one regardless.
1.5.9.2.6.1. Pro: The US under the Trump era, advocate and have their goal to reach for emphasizing a local economy.
1.5.9.2.6.2. Pro: All foods are going to get harder to grow due to climate change. This should not stop people from going vegan. If anything, this pressure will push people to be more vegan, as vegan foods will be easier to grow then than meat.
1.5.9.2.6.2.1. Pro: If vegan foods are grown in vertical farms, they'll help with surviving the new conditions \(as they can be placed anywhere and uses much less resources than current agricultural practices\).
1.5.9.2.6.2.2. Pro: People are going to want vegan food instead of meat, because people realize meat is a great contributor to climate change.
1.5.9.2.6.2.3. Pro: Vegan food has more options during climate change, because their supply will be less hit-and-miss with the unpredictability of climate change.
1.5.9.2.6.2.3.1. Pro: On [60 minutes](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/seaweed-farming-and-its-surprising-benefits/), a fisherman turned to kelp farming, because the fishing is hard to find \(especially when ocean animals move to seek colder waters\).
1.5.9.2.6.2.4. Pro: Vegan food takes less resources to grow, which will be easier to choose in scarce times \(like low water reserves\).
1.5.9.2.6.2.5. Pro: Plants will be able to [handle](https://www.southernliving.com/home-garden/gardens/drought-tolerant-plants) the hotter weather more than livestock, which will make vegan food a sound decision over meat as the planet warms up.
1.5.9.2.6.3. Pro: Local food will be easier to implement when [megacities](http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/agriculture-future-technologies-light) emerge, as farm innovations \(vertical, indoor, and rooftop\) could feed the masses more better than current production methods than the suburban/rural demographics of today.
1.5.9.2.6.4. Pro: Rewilding is a [movement](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/rewilding/human-rewilding1.htm) that could lead to foraging for food \(extremely local\) as lands gain wild plants again.
1.5.9.2.7. Pro: Not every country has favorable [cropland](https://cropmonitor.org/img/about/Synthesis_Crops.jpg) for vegan crops to grow on.
1.5.9.2.8. Con: Importing soy fed beef makes countries more dependent than importing [only a portion](https://www.simply-live-consciously.com/english/food-resources/food-consumption-of-animals/) of the soy for human consumption \(same also with the grain\), because soy fed beef requires more soy than human consumption alone. The greater absolute total for soy-fed beef creates a greater dependence on soy, if soy is a factor in creating that.
1.5.9.3. Pro: Animal rights organizations go north to Arctic communities and tell the Inuit populations that hunting seal is unethical and morally wrong. These same communities are then expected to [rely on imports from southern regions](https://goodfoodcentre.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/where-veganism-gets-food-security-wrong/) that are outrageously expensive.
1.5.9.3.1. Con: It is possible to advocate veganism without placing the burden on individual consumers who don't have the means to eat a vegan diet.
1.5.9.4. Con: If all of society was vegan then the cost of specialist vegan food would go down. Vegan food as a whole such as beans, grains and vegetables are already extremely affordable. B12 supplements and fortified foods are also extremely cheap.
1.5.9.5. Pro: A vegan society would be less economically efficient for the lesser privileged.
1.5.9.5.1. Pro: Animal produce is cheap in light of the government [subsidization](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=th&u=https://www.verantwoordeveehouderij.nl/show/Subsidie-belangrijke-inkomensbron-voor-veehouder-in-Europa.htm&prev=search). That makes a food system with animal products work, because it allows for food that's cheap enough for people to eat, thus allowing more people to be fed.
1.5.9.5.2. Con: If everyone eats vegan, then the subsidies from meat could go into vegan products to make them cheaper.
1.5.9.5.2.1. Pro: If the [$38 billion of subsidies that went to meat](https://meatonomics.com/tag/meat/) goes to fruit and vegetables \(which are already cheap\), then there would be multiple benefits.
1.5.9.5.2.1.1. Pro: Creating produce would become more efficient, because the money could go to innovations that could make produce even cheaper yet.
1.5.9.5.2.1.1.1. Pro: This could help save resources even more on top of the resources saved from switching away from meat.
1.5.9.5.2.1.2. Pro: The price of produce would go to zero \(the already low cost is less than the high subsidy\), which could make healthy food free and potentially end hunger.
1.5.9.5.3. Pro: Economics bars access.  The thesis is not 'All humans should have access to food', but that they should only consume certain kinds of food.  There are many geographic areas where meat and fish is cheaper, more abundant and easily attainable than fruits and vegetables.
1.5.9.5.3.1. Con: There are a rare few exceptional places which hunt for their food, but that is not all humans. All humans with a number of potential exceptions could have cheaper vegan food by making educated choices or if governments subsidised the food in the [same](https://plenteousveg.com/cost-vegan-protein-vs-animal-protein/) ways as meat, dairy and eggs are [subsidised](https://meatonomics.com/tag/meat/).
1.5.9.5.4. Con: Technological innovations could take place to advance a vegan society.
1.5.9.5.4.1. Pro: This could allow the people that lose employment in non-vegan industries to gain them in the vegan ones. It could possibly lead to more jobs than ever before.
1.5.9.5.4.1.1. Pro: Biofuel is so new and advanced, that this vegan industry can generate skilled jobs.
1.5.9.5.4.1.2. Pro: Non-vegan industries might not have as much automation as older industries, which would at least lead to a temporary job boom. One example of an industry switch could be from [coal to renewable energy](https://www.fromtheashesfilm.com/).
1.5.9.5.4.1.3. Con: Workers would have trouble applying their meat-processing skills in other \(i.e. vegan\) industries, because they aren't transferable.
1.5.9.5.4.1.3.1. Con: People currently working in the meat industry as labourers could switch to a 'vegan' job that makes an equal amount of money and is similar to their mode of work and industry so they don't notice the difference: like a janitor and floor sweeper of a slaughterhouse could be one for a fruit packer, a butcher of animals turn into one for produce chopper in a grocery store, etc.
1.5.9.5.4.1.3.1.1. Pro: According to a [2018 report](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/christmas-crisis-kill-dinner-work-abattoir-industry-psychological-physical-damage), staff shortages at UK slaughterhouses are great and increasing. The reason is that “people simply do not want to do this work any more”; this suggests that those who do still work in the industry suffer the inevitable negative effects of filling undesirable and unenjoyable jobs.
1.5.9.5.4.1.3.1.2. Con: If a person already has a job, they would have difficulty switching to another one if they just got the one they have recently, there aren't many other jobs in their area, or they lack the time to search or go on interviews.
1.5.9.5.4.1.3.1.2.1. Pro: If people get let go from a job, then they'll be able to have enough motivation too. However, because people are disincentivized from letting go of a job they have and avoid getting fired, the chances of that happening are slim.
1.5.9.5.4.1.3.1.3. Con: To switch jobs would mean losing out on wages temporarily, which would be a loss of money altogether, even if the wages are equal.
1.5.9.5.4.2. Pro: [Biofuel](http://www.digitalrefining.com/news/1003742,Axens____Vegan____technology_selected_by_Total_for_its_first_Biorefinery_in_France.html#.Ww7tA-6UvIV) is a great technology that a could improve a vegan society's current fuel resources.
1.5.9.5.4.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.9.5.4.1.1.
1.5.9.5.4.2.2. Pro: Biofuel is better than other fuels, as it does not contain [sulfur/aromatic compounds](http://www.digitalrefining.com/news/1003742,Axens____Vegan____technology_selected_by_Total_for_its_first_Biorefinery_in_France.html#.Ww7tA-6UvIV) that other fuels contain.
1.5.9.5.5. Pro: In a globalized free market, if more people go vegan, it'll drive demand up, and that would cause oversupplies to happen more frequently. Then prices would go down so much that it could create [food shortages among other problems \(like monopolization\)](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:80ygqHsrZwQJ:https://learn.mesaprogram.org/module/distribution-access-equity/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).
1.5.9.5.6. Pro: Even in India, which is deemed as a vegetarian country, more and more people are turning to meat, and vegetarianism is really propped up forced- or non-economic factors: [wealthy](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122), [politics](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122), [patriarchy](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122), [religion](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/07/14/422592127/egg-wars-india-s-vegetarian-elite-are-accused-of-keeping-kids-hungry), or get a privileged status that gives them [economic benefits](https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-14/only-one-five-indians-really-vegetarian).
1.5.9.5.7. Pro: [Government intervention is a sign of market failure](https://www.educba.com/market-failure-and-the-role-of-government/), of which happens with [dairy](https://www.history.com/news/government-cheese-dairy-farmers-reagan). However, since vegan foods don't get or require [as many subsidies](https://medium.com/\@laletur/should-governments-subsidy-the-meat-and-dairy-industries-6ce59e68d26), their costs are more accurately reflected in prices, which is a sign of [market efficiency](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketefficiency.asp).
1.5.9.6. Pro: The move to veganism would cause mass unemployment as farming, beekeeping, meat processing, and many other jobs would end. This would cause massive poverty, much as the [deindustrialisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindustrialization) has done already but on a larger scale.
1.5.9.6.1. Pro: Meat is not the only product from meat-industry, going vegan will affect farming practices, since meat [by-products](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_product) are also used as fertilizers as well as in other chemical production utilizing [bones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_char), [fat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallow), [hair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_fiber) and [hooves](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5792a41a59cc68d6c93ced4f/t/5a78e0f4652deabd9163410b/1517871349410/Industrial_Application.pdf) and [horns](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23410124) \(the last 3 are major source of keratin\) to mention a few. This will have a dramatic impact on many economies.
1.5.9.6.2. Con: The [demand](https://healthcaretrends24.com/106826/vegan-mayonnaise-market-higher-mortality-rates-by-2025/) for more vegan products \([plant milks](https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/22/why-im-switching-from-milk-to-silk.aspx), meat substitutes, etc\) is already causing a [shift in businesses](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/soy-milks-popularity-a-headache-for-dairy-industry-2014-07-19). Animal-based companies worldwide are already profiting in the production more vegan-friendly products \([Unilever](http://www.grubstreet.com/2016/02/hellmanns-very-ironic-vegan-mayo.html), [McDonald's](https://www.mcdonalds.co.za/menuItem/veggie-burger-meal)\) and [new vegan companies are on the rise](http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=6471&catId=8).
1.5.9.6.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.9.5.4.1.
1.5.9.6.3. Con: Business will adapt as they always do. This move to veganism would come on several generations so there is time for market to adapt and to do the transition.
1.5.9.6.4. Con: One can argue for keeping every industry alive for the sake of jobs, no matter how harmful. Under this premise, we could never achieve progress and change.
1.5.9.6.5. Con: This would be a short term effect and would not \(in and of itself\) make society worse off in the longer term, especially if replaced by other industries which may require more or less labour inputs.
1.5.9.6.5.1. Pro: Ultimately the same amount of food would need to be produced. As such demand for workers in non animal based farming would increase. Varieties of non-animal products would also increase to account for the diversity of products desired by consumers \(think about the variety of crisps or candy currently in the market place\) this would result in emergence of various niche non animal products and related industry. A good example is faux leather made from mycelium.
1.5.9.7. Con: As countries become more developed, the issue of lesser privileged societies not being able to go vegan \(due to economic hardship\) will become less and less of an issue.
1.5.9.8. Con: For extremely isolated places where all food is imported \(like Antarctica\), whether it's vegan or animal food won't matter much to their economy, as long as high quality/quantity/durable food comes in.
1.5.10. Pro: Replacing all non-food animal products is extremely expensive.
1.5.10.1. Con: Any change will involve \(short-term\) costs in transitioning to the new system. Thus, by that logic, any change wouldn't be worthwhile.
1.5.10.2. Con: Grains and legumes make up the majority of a [vegan diet](https://budgeting.thenest.com/weekly-grocery-list-healthy-living-family-budget-23453.html)'s protein and calorie content. Those are very inexpensive food items that are often available in bulk \(reducing the price further\), making them better suited for people with unstable income.
1.5.10.2.1. Con: Meat can be bought in bulk too, making meat cheap too. Buying in bulk to save on price is not food-specific. Buying meat in bulk \(reduces its subsidized price further\) helps those with an unstable income buy it.
1.5.10.3. Pro: [Ethical fashion brands](https://kindsofgrace.com/blogs/vegan-fashion-editorial/why-is-ethical-fashion-more-expensive) - which include vegan fashion - are often very expensive.
1.5.11. Con: If there is an issue of lesser-privileged societies not being able to go vegan, it's up to the more-privileged societies to use their privilege to help them out.
1.5.11.1. Con: Even if a vegan diet could theoretically contain all needed nutrients, it would be wrong to deprive people in poverty the option of potentially richer sources of protein and nutrients.
1.5.11.2. Pro: Due to globalization, the more people go vegan worldwide, the cheaper vegan products \(due to greater availability\) will become to the consumer until lesser privileged societies overall would be able to afford it.
1.5.11.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.9.4.
1.5.11.3. Con: It'll be really difficult to let [uncontacted tribes](https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/there-are-more-than-100-uncontacted-tribes-in-the-world-who-are-they) know what veganism is, as likely they won't go vegan on their own.
1.5.11.3.1. Pro: Contacting them would disrupt their culture.
1.5.11.3.2. Pro: Trying to understand their language to communicate with them would be difficult.
1.5.11.3.3. Pro: Contacting them wouldn't work, as it may introduce [disease](https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/there-are-more-than-100-uncontacted-tribes-in-the-world-who-are-they) to them, which would lead to them not going vegan anyway if they're wiped out.
1.5.11.4. Pro: The more privileged societies \(being in a role model position with more attention placed on them\) go vegan, the more feasible going vegan will be to less privileged societies/individuals.
1.5.11.4.1. Pro: Veganism is seen as a status symbol and a sign of privilege, due to its difficulty in attaining it. If everyone's vegan, it'll no longer be that way, which will make eating it more socially feasible.
1.5.11.4.2. Pro: Privileged individuals have a responsibility to fulfill their duty/obligation as a role model for the rest of the world to show that it's possible \(so they could know how to get there too\).
1.5.11.5. Pro: More privileged societies could provide aid to make vegan food cheaper and funding to make crops easier to grow, so they can become capable to go vegan.
1.5.12. Con: -> See 1.5.5.1.2.
1.5.13. Pro: Supply chain management, production, and distribution of foodstuffs such as cereals, fruits, and vegetables can be highly [inefficient](https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger) in many developing countries. This means that even with the eradication of non-vegan products, many staple vegan foods could remain relatively inaccessible in poorer areas of the world.
1.5.13.1. Con: The supply chain at present is corrupted too when the world is not vegan. The food is not reaching properly to all the population. The upper argument does not make any sense as you are using [Appeal to Common Sense](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Common-Sense).
1.5.13.2. Con: Supply chains can and perhaps should be changed to allow for worldwide ethical consumption.
1.5.14. Pro: Vegan foods have too low [bioavailability](https://foodguru802.blogspot.com/2012/01/protein-bioavailability-list.html) \(compared to animal products\) to provide nutrients lost through [diarrheal disease](https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/09/veganism-is-a-privilege-not-a-cure/), which is highly common and can be very serious in developing countries.
1.5.14.1. Pro: Diseases such as [norovirus](https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/trends-outbreaks/worldwide.html) ultimately lead to [undernutrition](https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/09/veganism-is-a-privilege-not-a-cure/) and, commonly, [death](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death) in developing countries with a lack of sanitation.
1.5.15. Con: If veganism was treated like a [right rather than privilege](https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-right-and-vs-privilege/), it would be possible to extend to everyone.
1.6. Pro: A world of veganism would be a more ethical world: its morals would bring benefits to human society.
1.6.1. Con: Veganism is not ethically superior to other lifestyles.
1.6.1.1. Con: Take any society or lifestyle that consumes some animal products. Substituting those animal products with vegan alternatives, keeping all else equal, cannot make that society or lifestyle less ethical. Indeed, from an animal rights perspective, it would be far more ethical. Thus veganism is always an ethical improvement over the comparable non-vegan-ism.
1.6.1.2. Pro: Veganism accepts valuing humans/animals over other lifeforms, which is almost as bad as omnivores accepting valuing humans over animal/other lifeforms.
1.6.1.2.1. Con: Humans require food to live and all known food sources require consuming some other organism. Veganism values life more than non-veganism as non-veganism kills organisms to feed livestock and then kills the livestock to feed humans. In contrast, veganism kills only the vegetation.
1.6.1.2.2. Con: Vegans value sentience, and humans/non-human animals are the only organisms that are proven to have sentience.
1.6.1.2.3. Con: It is not necessarily bad to value some lives more than others.
1.6.1.2.4. Con: If we don't accept species hierarchies, then it would be just as moral to kill a human as a plant, which most people would object to.
1.6.1.2.5. Con: The premise that omnivores always value humans over animals is not always true. For instance, animals are not held to the same moral standards as humans. As a result, animals live freer lives which indicates that their lives are valued more than humans.
1.6.1.2.6. Pro: -> See 1.4.8.4.
1.6.1.2.7. Pro: Without plants, humans would not be able to survive. Just about everything comes from them. To think of them poorly is degrading, as they provide more value at times than people and animals do.
1.6.1.2.8. Pro: Plants are our ancestors \(we share [half our DNA with bananas](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/humans-share-50-dna-bananas-2482139)\). If we're supposed to respect our ancestors, then we should respect them and value their lives too, instead of below us.
1.6.1.2.8.1. Con: Respect for our ancestors is not required.
1.6.1.2.9. Pro: -> See 1.4.8.4.9.
1.6.1.2.10. Pro: Vegans' morality/ethics is always linked to animals we have empathy with, where we recognize ourselves as similar in the line of evolution, like mammals, fishes, birds, etc. It is acceptable to kill other kinds of lifelike non-pathogenic microbes or even vegetables, when no empathic sense is developed. Then, moral discourse just protects part of life, not life itself.
1.6.1.2.10.1. Con: There are good reasons to think killing a sentient creature \(like a mammal, fish, bird\) is immoral and killing a non-sentient creature \(like a vegetable\) is not immoral.
1.6.1.2.10.1.1. Pro: It is taken as morally axiomatic that ending sentient life unnecessarily is immoral. Killing a sentient creature ends sentient life while killing a non-sentient creature does not.
1.6.1.2.10.1.1.1. Con: The morality of taking a sentient life being dependent upon necessity is subjective; necessity predicating the morality of the ending of sentient life is not only situational but presumes the ability of, at least, one party to determine that out of all potential outcomes the taking of a said life is the least beneficial and most abhorrent end.
1.6.1.2.10.1.1.1.1. Con: Even as the judgment of necessity is made individually, the standard for this decision can be universally defined.
1.6.1.2.10.1.1.1.2. Con: The taking of a life does not need to be the least beneficial outcome for it to be unnecessary.
1.6.1.2.10.2. Pro: Veganism is based on the false superiority of animals against plants, while we already know about plant life \(like Pando\) that is much more complex than sponges \(animals\). It doesn't make sense for Pando to be considered 'just' food and sponge considered comparatively sacred.
1.6.1.2.10.2.1. Con: Appeal to extremes / reductio ad absurdum. Vegans do not have to argue that sponges are superior and sacred compared to some plants. The general superiority of animals is not false - some animals that we eat are conscious, sentient beings. No plants are conscious or sentient.
1.6.1.3. Pro: Veganism's morality is more detrimental and exploitative to lifeforms outside of animals than alternative dietary lifestyles.
1.6.1.3.1. Con: Veganism is, at the very least, no more detrimental to non-animal life than current widespread non-vegan agricultural practices. There is good reason to think it would be significantly less detrimental than such practices.
1.6.1.3.2. Con: Human existence is inherently exploitative to some life forms. Veganism is the least exploitative.
1.6.1.3.3. Pro: Many plant species go extinct or endangered due to exploiting plants, especially in the essential oil industry with rare plants like [sandalwood](http://www.tambela.com/articles/sandalwood.php).
1.6.1.3.3.1. Con: A non-vegan diet necessitates exploiting plants too.
1.6.1.3.3.2. Con: The use of essential oils is not part of a vegan or non-vegan diet.
1.6.1.3.4. Pro: Killing wild plants affects entire ecosystems \(including wildlife and native cultures\), especially to the point that a major food source goes away. An example of this is cutting down trees that take a long time if ever to bear fruit if replanted \(such as [acorn trees in a drought-prone environment](https://www.kcet.org/shows/tending-the-wild/episodes/tending-the-wild)\).
1.6.1.3.5. Pro: This impacts all life on Earth. For example, if a plant is not preserved in the Amazon due to deforestation for a crop, that plant cannot be examined to find it to be a [pharmaceutical breakthrough](http://rain-tree.com/) for a major disease.
1.6.1.3.5.1. Con: Veganism need not be and generally isn't supportive of ecologically harmful agricultural practices.
1.6.1.3.5.2. Con: Deforestation happens just as much, if not more, under our current system.
1.6.1.3.5.2.1. Pro: Meat production leads to deforestation.
1.6.1.3.5.2.1.1. Pro: [6 million hectares](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment) of forest, twice the size of Belgium, and the same amount of wetlands, are lost every year due to farming. The majority of this farming is to directly support animals or grow their feed.
1.6.1.3.5.2.1.2. Pro: [91%](http://web.archive.org/web/20180620024435/https://rainforestfoundation.org/agriculture/) of deforestation in rainforests is due to animal agriculture \(clearing land and growing food for livestock\).
1.6.1.3.5.2.1.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.14.3.7.6.1.1.
1.6.1.3.5.2.2. Pro: [Tropical deforestation](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/aaa) is responsible for about 10 percent of global warming emissions and no product contributes more to tropical deforestation than beef.
1.6.1.3.6. Pro: Vegan ethics provide no protection for organisms outside the animal kingdom, such as unicellular and non-animal multi-cellular organisms.
1.6.1.3.6.1. Con: Vegan ethics isn't opposed to potentially extending ethics to other sorts of organisms. Rather, it just diverges from more common dietary beliefs on the question of consuming animal products.
1.6.1.3.6.2. Con: Non vegan ethics also provides no protection for organisms outside the animal kingdom.
1.6.1.3.6.3. Con: Unlike animals, unicellular organisms do not have a central nervous system and cannot feel pain or suffering.
1.6.1.3.7. Con: Giving animals moral consideration is still better than not respecting the needs of other living beings at all. No one said veganism was the end all be all, we will still need to adapt and evolve our ethics continuously as science gives us more insight on what it means to be alive and sentient.
1.6.1.3.8. Con: "Murdering" a carrot and murdering a dog are different acts. The argument that these are morally different hinges on sentience. It's the same reason turning off the life support machine sustaining a brain-dead patient is considered more acceptable than not treating a mentally alive person who would otherwise die from an illness. A body without consciousness doesn't care about what is done to it and has no sense of itself to lose, so its moral claim can't be equated with a sentient life's claim.
1.6.1.4. Pro: Some forms of sustenance \(including diets\) are more ethical than veganism.
1.6.1.4.1. Con: Any variety of non-vegan diet can reduce the harm to sentient life by replacing animal-derived products with non-animal derived products. As it is ethical to reduce the harm to sentient life, any non-vegan diet can be made more ethical by replacing animal-derived products with non-animal derived products \(i.e. becoming vegan\).
1.6.1.4.2. Pro: Veganism itself isn't good, it is its concern for sentient beings and the environment that is underlying it that is good.
1.6.1.4.2.1. Pro: It is possible for a farm to raise animals in such a way, that you have an abundance of animals that get to lead [rich and fulfilling lives](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/urban-farming/2017/06/12/alberta-ranch-takes-ethics-of-cattle-farming-to-a-new-level-the-new-farm.html) that they otherwise would not be able to lead in the wild.
1.6.1.4.2.1.1. Con: It is possible to help raise animals and support them in living rich and fulfilling lives without eating them or other animal products.
1.6.1.4.2.1.1.1. Con: Mutual benefits from animal products would help sustain the financial viability of such a farm or animal support system.
1.6.1.4.2.2. Pro: Veganism is a rule of thumb, it's morally good in circumstances where consumption of animal products is tied to the suffering of sentient beings. Conversely, it's morally bad in inverse circumstances.
1.6.1.4.2.3. Con: Veganism is pursued by people with the value of "concern for sentient beings and the environment" because people with that value want some of the good results from veganism. Thus veganism has positive results, regardless of the motivations of the vegan person.
1.6.1.4.3. Pro: Fruitarians help plants out and try not to hurt them.
1.6.1.4.3.1. Con: Fruititarianism is a specific subtype of veganism. Hence, those who favor fruitiarianism do not in fact support non-veganism over veganism.
1.6.1.4.3.2. Pro: Many fruitarians wait for plants parts \(like pollen, fruit, nuts, seeds, etc.\) [to fall before eating them](https://www.thealternativedaily.com/how-the-fruitarian-diet-works/) to prevent harming them. This is more ethical than vegan food that can potentially hurt and kill plants.
1.6.1.4.3.3. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.6.1.
1.6.2. Pro: It is unethical to consume animals that you have not yourself killed, as you are not taking responsibility for your actions.
1.6.2.1. Con: Outsourcing tasks can be efficient and cost effective. By having different professions we are able to excel in our own area, be it butcher or farmer.
1.6.2.2. Con: Using that flawed logic, if you want to drive a car you should have to build the car yourself, since by your logic you can't consume a product unless you created it. In this case, the product would be meat.
1.6.2.3. Con: Being responsible doesn't mean doing everything oneself. It means thinking about the consequences, doing what is right, and avoiding doing what is wrong.
1.6.2.3.1. Con: This is certainly true people should not be able to hide their responsibility through layers of indirection but in practice they do. Shorter chains of production can make people more aware of the costs and benefits of an activity.
1.6.3. Pro: Veganism promotes empathy.
1.6.3.1. Pro: If we look at the moral arc of [history](https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/human-history-is-an-ever-expanding-circle-of-empathy/), the consistent theme is an ever-expanding [circle](http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Steven-Pinker.htm) of empathy as societies progress. Expanding the circle to include animals represents continued moral progress.
1.6.3.1.1. Pro: In relatively recent history, we have seen the circle expand from the abolishment of slavery to the civil rights movement, to gay rights.
1.6.3.1.1.1. Pro: During this [period](https://www.thoughtco.com/historical-timeline-of-animal-rights-movement-127594) there has also been a consistent pattern of increasing concern for animals and their [rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_animal_welfare_and_rights).
1.6.3.1.2. Con: The ever-expanding circle empathy is descriptive not prescriptive. Moving past what is currently being practiced must be justified in its own right.
1.6.3.2. Pro: [Teaching children empathy for animals will likely create a more empathetic and kinder society.](http://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/resources/humaneeducation)There is a strong correlation between cruel behavior toward animals and lack of empathy for human beings.
1.6.3.3. Con: -> See 1.6.1.2.10.
1.6.4. Pro: Vegan industries are often more transparent and supportive of workers' rights than their non-vegan counterparts.
1.6.4.1. Pro: The non-vegan agricultural industry is dangerous as there is political corruption leading to environmental defenders and activists being [regularly killed](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/02/almost-four-environmental-defenders-a-week-killed-in-2017).
1.6.4.1.1. Con: This holds for the whole agricultural production, not only of meat and diary, and includes potential vegan foods.
1.6.4.2. Con: Vegan food production is unethical for workers.
1.6.4.2.1. Con: [Better conditions](https://www.dw.com/en/farm-laborers-underpaid-and-overworked/av-49991952) \(e.g. safer working conditions, stronger unions, better pay, better hours, etc.\) for agricultural workers can \(and perhaps should\) be pursued.
1.6.4.2.2. Pro: [70%](http://www.fao.org/rural-employment/resources/detail/en/c/1073931/) of child labor is in agriculture.
1.6.4.2.2.1. Con: This is not inherently an agriculture-related problem. Child labor disappears when poverty disappears and when there are alternatives \(like education\). Taking away the employment will only make things worse.
1.6.4.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.2.4.2.1.
1.6.4.2.4. Con: Once people go vegan, they may want to reduce their negative social impact by buying local foods \(or even growing their own\).
1.6.4.2.4.1. Pro: Local and growing food industries might grow when everyone goes vegan, which will make it easier to avoid worker exploitation.
1.6.4.2.5. Con: Most western Europeans consume food from all around the world. This is not vegan related. Local and ethical is possible with vegan as well.
1.6.4.2.6. Pro: Vegan consumers who do not grow their own vegan food often put more money in the pockets of corporate crop farms such as [Monsanto](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents) and [Chiquita](https://www.historychannel.com.au/this-day-in-history/banana-massacre/) \(formerly the [United Fruit Company](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-significance-of-the-united-fruit-company.html)\), who interfere with the lives of developing world indigenous farmers by patenting their crops and abusing labour rights.
1.6.4.2.6.1. Con: These consumers can be informed that these companies go against veganism by exploiting and harming sentient creatures for personal gain, and avoid these companies.
1.6.4.2.6.1.1. Con: Even with the knowledge that these companies are unethical, it is difficult to avoid buying from them.
1.6.4.2.7. Pro: Many popular vegan crops are picked by migrant farmers that face sexual, verbal, and physical abuse, as well as low pay. The production of vegan products is also not “cruelty free".
1.6.4.2.7.1. Con: Most crops \(especially in richer areas on the globe\) are [produced for animal feed](https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/agriculture-food-vs-feed/). Changing to a plant-based diet would mean that less farmers would be needed to produce crops, thus less farmers needs to be checked on employer welfare standards with the same amount of resources.
1.6.4.2.7.2. Con: There are no exclusively vegan crops. Food and products consumed by vegans are also eaten/used by non-vegans directly, and indirectly via the livestock they consume.
1.6.4.2.7.3. Con: Welfare standards of farmers are a separate issue from the issues veganism tries to solve. You can just as easily be a vegan checking welfare standards \(or enforcing them through your government, depending on the level of democracy of your government\) as being a non-vegan checking those standards of the products you buy.
1.6.4.3. Pro: Meat industry workers and their communities suffer.
1.6.4.3.1. Pro: Safety standards in the meat industry are particularly low. The [meatpacking industry](https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/01/24/abuses-against-workers-taint-us-meat-and-poultry) is particularly dangerous.
1.6.4.3.1.1. Con: Safety standards can be raised and enforced. Banning something outright because the standards are currently lax is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
1.6.4.3.1.2. Con: [Safety standards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_food_safety_organisations) differ between countries, some may be better than the United States \(which the article above discusses\).
1.6.4.3.1.3. Pro: Even though the numbers are low, meatpacking is still a pretty dangerous industry due to [under-reporting](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meat-and-poultry-work-is-dangerous-but-not-all-injuries-counted/).
1.6.4.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.9.5.4.1.3.1.1.
1.6.4.3.3. Pro: People face more health issues from the meat industry directly and indirectly than if it didn't exist.
1.6.4.3.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.6.4.1.
1.6.4.3.3.2. Pro: Slaughterhouses [create and increase](https://www.texasobserver.org/ptsd-in-the-slaughterhouse/) [PTSD](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355967) in their workers.
1.6.4.3.3.2.1. Con: It is possible to eat meat that does not come from a slaughterhouse.
1.6.4.3.3.2.1.1. Con: If you're talking about 'free to roam' 'organic' "happy" animals, then space would be an issue. We're [already using](http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/ar591e/ar591e.pdf) about 30% of the earth's landmass for animal agriculture, and most meat comes from tightly packed, super efficient slaughterhouses. If everyone ate 'ethical meat' it'd have to be grown on the moon.
1.6.4.3.3.2.1.2. Con: This is a small proportion of the meat consumed.
1.6.4.3.3.2.2. Con: This is a systemic problem that, while heavily linked to the current system of animal agriculture, is not an inherent part of it.
1.6.4.3.3.2.2.1. Con: Reducing demand for meat will, in the long run, lead to fewer slaughterhouses and less trauma for the workers, whether or not slaughterhouses are a truly necessary part of the system.
1.6.4.3.3.2.3. Pro: Many slaughterhouse employees describe the [emotional toll](https://www.texasobserver.org/ptsd-in-the-slaughterhouse/) of having to kill animals that they do not want to harm, and may even have connected with. As a result, they are forced to stop caring completely to cope with the emotional dissonance of their job.
1.6.4.3.3.2.4. Pro: Having to kill hundreds of animals amounts to [repetitive trauma](https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/31/how-killing-animals-everyday-leaves-slaughterhouse-workers-traumatised-7175087/). This type of trauma can lead to a specific type of PTSD known as complex PTSD, which is also observed in child abuse victims.
1.6.4.3.3.2.5. Pro: Many slaughterhouse workers experience PTSD symptoms: including a [lack of empathy and mental disturbances](https://www.texasobserver.org/ptsd-in-the-slaughterhouse/), which have been observed in higher rates of [criminals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5429629/). This might explain why we see higher criminality rates in communities surrounding slaughterhouses.
1.6.4.3.3.3. Pro: The Health and Safety Executive said in 2018 that the slaughter industry was at the “top end” of its “concern level” for [injury rates](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/christmas-crisis-kill-dinner-work-abattoir-industry-psychological-physical-damage), finding that in 6 years, 800 UK abattoir workers suffered serious injuries, 78 required amputations and 4 died while at work.
1.6.4.3.3.3.1. Pro: Slaughterhouse employees are not only exposed to a battery of physical dangers on the cut floor, but the psychological weight of their work erodes their well being. Read "Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry" and other numerous literature on this matter.
1.6.4.3.3.4. Pro: With the COVID-19 outbreak [impacting meat plants disproportionately more](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/11/chaotic-and-crazy-meat-plants-around-the-world-struggle-with-virus-outbreaks), health inspectors inspecting them possibly [contract the coronavirus and have fatalities](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-14/fourth-usda-inspector-dies-from-virus-amid-meat-plant-outbreaks) from their inspections from close contact with it there.
1.6.4.3.4. Pro: The meat industry contributes directly and indirectly to crime.
1.6.4.3.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.6.4.1.
1.6.4.3.4.2. Pro: Towns hosting slaughterhouses have higher criminality rates \([1](http://www.animalstudies.msu.edu/Slaughterhouses_and_Increased_Crime_Rates.pdf), [2](https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2010/05/14/probing_the_link_between_slaughterhouses_and_violent_crime.html), [3](http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15685306-12341284)\), suggesting that communities with a slaughterhouse are negatively affected by its presence regardless of whether they are directly involved in its running.
1.6.4.3.4.2.1. Pro: In a study using analysis of 1994-2002 crime data, findings indicated that slaughterhouse employment may [increase](http://www.animalstudies.msu.edu/Slaughterhouses_and_Increased_Crime_Rates.pdf) total arrest rates, arrests for violent crimes, rape, and other sex offenses in comparison with other industries.
1.6.4.3.4.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.6.4.3.3.2.5.
1.6.5. Con: -> See 1.1.8.
1.6.6. Con: At present, human demand for meat outweighs our ethical concerns surrounding the eating of meat. We should consider a global adoption of veganism only when we collectively feel that the ethical considerations outweigh our global demand for meat consumption.
1.6.6.1. Con: This is an [appeal to the majority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), which is a fallacy. That is, it argues that veganism will be the moral choice when the effective majority agrees it is.
1.6.6.2. Pro: Even if people try, they might revert back to eating meat out of habit or subconscious actions that people are unaware of \(like still going to a favorite steakhouse without remembering that they are vegan now\). Thus, without taking motivation into consideration \(making sure people want to be vegan\) first, the worldwide vegan change would not last permanently.
1.6.6.2.1. Con: Being motivated isn't necessarily the right cause to quit veganism. Nearly all addictions and bad habits are a "motivation" to continue no matter if it is cognitively understood. Some patterns simply have to get cut short without consent.
1.6.6.3. Con: Demand for veganism will follow action if everyone goes vegan and the right motivators are in place \(like advertisements and convenience\). Thus, demand for meat shouldn't stop the world from trying to go vegan.
1.6.7. Con: Killing animals for food is a [survival instinct](http://www.dana.org/News/Details.aspx?id=43484), and so not inherently unethical or morally blameworthy.
1.6.7.1. Con: "Civilisation" can be defined as the ongoing process of overriding and moving away from our instinctual drivers for survival \(as individuals or as a species\) towards more rational and moral behaviors.
1.6.7.2. Con: Early modern humans were more prey than predator then, evolving instincts to repulse animals \(like [phobias](https://hubpages.com/health/list-of-animal-phobias), [fight-or-flight](https://psychcentral.com/blog/whats-the-purpose-of-the-fight-or-flight-response/), [patternicity](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/), and [anxiety](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/evolution_of_anxiety_humans_were_prey_for_predators_such_as_hyenas_snakes.html)\), not those to kill them. People's current animal-killing desire is [unnatural](https://www.peta.org/living/food/really-natural-truth-humans-eating-meat/) and [rare](https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/01/06/132708321/human-killing-instinct-really), associated with [sociopaths](https://prime.peta.org/2010/04/only-sociopaths-intentionally-hurt-animals-a-professional-view), and stems from [trauma in life](http://www.humanesociety.org/parents_educators/childhood_cruelty_breaking_cycle_abuse.html), not at birth, as we have choices now not to kill animals for food. This and its [habitual progression](https://www.animallaw.info/article/link-cruelty-animals-and-violence-towards-people) make humans killing animals [immoral and unethical](http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/AnimalCrueltyLaws.pdf).
1.6.7.2.1. Con: It isn't natural to want to kill, but killing is necessitated by the desire for food, which is greater than the repulsion to killing.
1.6.7.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.6.4.3.3.2.
1.6.7.2.3. Pro: Even our [most common instinct](http://listverse.com/2018/09/02/10-facts-about-human-cannibalism-from-modern-science/) of animal-killing, intraspecies predation \([killing](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/human-violence-evolution-animals-nature-science/) and [eating humans](http://listverse.com/2018/09/02/10-facts-about-human-cannibalism-from-modern-science/), which are animals\), is [frowned upon](https://www.businessinsider.com/most-ridiculous-law-in-every-state-2014-2). In fact, it is so natural, some humans are [genetically resistant](http://listverse.com/2018/09/02/10-facts-about-human-cannibalism-from-modern-science/) to cannibalism-related diseases, like prions.
1.6.7.2.3.1. Con: If certain people evolved to be cannibals, that proves that [predation](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predation) is in fact a natural instinct in humans.
1.6.7.2.4. Pro: Our bodies match our lack of predatory instincts and never really evolved them, because we outsourced our hunting capabilities to tools instead of our bodies \(except using our minds to hunt\). Without [tools](http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/tools-food), getting meat would be very difficult, whereas it would be no issue for a carnivore or omnivore. They even [started to be used](http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/tools-food) around when humans started eating meat.
1.6.7.2.5. Pro: Even when humans take on the role of being a predator, they act differently than most real predators by being a '[super-predator](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34011026)'. The behavior is so irregular, it is even [unsustainable](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-superpredator-unique-predator-carnivore-fishing-hunting-unsustainable-20150820-story.html) and devastates ecosystems. Humans are not meant to be predators and kill animals, our poor judgment and behavior illustrates it is not a natural instinct, even for nature.
1.6.7.2.6. Con: Contrary to popular assumptions, there is evidence that humans have [specific hunting traits](https://www.livescience.com/4631-modern-humans-retain-caveman-survival-instincts.html), and often express a natural [hunting instinct](https://www.depauw.edu/humanimalia/issue%2015/dinets.html), which has a 'thrilling' effect that has been replicated by [hunting-based video games and sport \(rather than subsistence\) hunting, such as safari hunting and catch-and-release fishing.](http://www.utdailybeacon.com/news/professor-studies-hunter-instinct-within-humans/article_4c7e14f8-9f69-11e6-b59e-d391da16db17.html)
1.6.7.2.6.1. Con: Hunting skills/instincts that were created came from our intellect that superceded our existence that our bodies were not suited for, and still are not. Since we're in a place we shouldn't be in, just because we have these skills doesn't automatically mean we should be using them, as that's a [rights to ought fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Rights-To-Ought-Fallacy).
1.6.7.2.7. Con: It is a misconception that we cannot be prey and predator at the same time.
1.6.7.3. Con: -> See 1.1.6.1.3.
1.6.7.4. Con: One cannot be blamed for being born with or not knowing any better, but that does not make wrongdoing any more acceptable. However, instinctive behavior becomes immoral and unethical when we know better, as at that point we can choose.
1.6.7.4.1. Con: Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because animals do something, doesn't make it right for humans to do. They are in a different position, and so are we. Humans should customize their behaviors to what the best mode is for them, as should animals. One can emulate animals though, only if it enhances one's behavior towards being more respectful when surviving.
1.6.7.5. Con: Instinctive, natural behavior is counterproductive can create problems, both for the individual and society, and both might want it removed. If both deem it immoral and unethical, then it is it as such and the unwanted behaviors should be shied away from and hopefully removed if possible.
1.6.7.6. Con: Just because we cannot change what a current status is, doesn't mean we cannot learn from and change our circumstances for a better future. People might not deserve blame for being immoral or unethical, but their actions can. Luckily actions can be changed.
1.6.7.6.1. Pro: People can eventually modify their outcomes even with their circumstances that they are born into and have. They could reduce their personal, yet immoral/unethical behaviors consciously and/or avoid situations that their behaviors come out in.
1.6.7.6.2. Pro: People may eventually breed out unwanted behaviors, whether consciously \(or unconsciously\) through evolution. Anything unwanted does not have to stick around if undesired.
1.6.7.7. Pro: -> See 1.4.1.4.4.
1.6.7.8. Con: People do not have a natural instinct to kill animals for food.
1.6.7.8.1. Pro: Most humans do not simply walk by a meadow with grazing cows and develop a sudden bloodlust. Our instinct to kill has been weakened severely and most people would only kill as a last resort.
1.6.7.8.1.1. Pro: In the age of supermarkets, hunting is not necessary for survival, which decreases a person's use of their instincts to kill animals for food.
1.6.7.8.1.1.1. Con: Much of the world's population does not have access to a supermarket. Hunting is still absolutely necessary for them.
1.6.7.8.2. Pro: -> See 1.6.4.3.3.2.3.
1.6.8. Pro: Veganism sets life up for efficiency, as it is both [utilitarianistic](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080708064040AAuo70s) and [minimalistic](https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-new/blog/minimalism-and-veganism-crossover).
1.6.8.1. Pro: Veganism is a total liberation attitude. Not depending/relying on animals \(human or non-human\) for survival/existence is freeing to a person, because that level of independence allows people to have greater freedom \(and sense of it\).
1.6.9. Pro: A [vegan approach](http://www.vegansociety.com) to the world tends to support the rights of humans, as well as benefiting animals.
1.6.9.1. Pro: It's egalitarian in letting everyone start out equally in life with the same diet. This fairness \(of costs/benefits to health, environment, etc.\) prevents fighting and helps people feel better about their life circumstances.
1.6.9.1.1. Con: Even if all humans were vegan, it does not follow that the vegan diets of the rich and poor would be equal in quality, variety, or reliability.
1.6.9.2. Pro: The theory of [intersectional veganism](https://veganvoicesofcolor.org/2017/01/29/intersectional-veganism/) studies animal rights and how they fit into the context of oppression of various historic groups. The goal of intersectional veganism is to redefine society in a way that reduces oppression of all groups, not just animals.
1.6.9.2.1. Con: Intersectional veganism relies on the troubling premise that because some people treat human beings that look different from them akin to animals, we can improve the situation by treating animals better.  The more enlightened perspective would be to treat all humans regardless of racial differences as equally deserving of human rights.  Elevating the status of animals to is in no way required to believe that all humans possess individual rights.
1.6.9.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.
1.6.9.4. Pro: If humans stopped treating animals as commodities \(like being objectified for consumption\), they would less likely utilize [dehumanization](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dehumanization) as a justification for making decisions.
1.6.9.4.1. Pro: The dehumanization could be a pretext for war.
1.6.9.4.1.1. Pro: This is due to [demonizing the enemy to the point of thinking of them as subhuman](https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization) to not treat them humanely, just like with commodifying animals.
1.6.9.4.1.2. Pro: Favoring one species over another might lead to people thinking about favoring one group of humans over another.
1.6.9.4.1.3. Con: There is no scholarly research that shows a link between diet or veganism and a propensity to warfare.
1.6.9.4.1.4. Con: Lack of resources is what causes war.  If everyone goes to a vegan diet, there will be more competition for food, not less, leading to more desperation and starvation, and therefore, more war.
1.6.9.4.1.4.1. Pro: During a transition away from meat the upset to the existing food production network is very likely to cause shortages and increased competition.
1.6.9.4.1.4.1.1. Con: This is only short-term. In the long-term, these tensions will go away as non-vegan farms convert to vegan ones.
1.6.9.4.2. Pro: People might apply and transfer the principles of [speciesism](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/speciesism) to humans if the habit of eating meat is so ingrained into their lives that they see how the concept could apply to other lifestyle activities \(such as shopping, entertainment, travel...\).
1.6.9.4.2.1. Pro: People who eat meat might be more okay with people being exploited to make products on market, such as clothing.
1.6.9.4.3. Pro: People might apply their objectification tendencies to humans \(as humans are animals too\). This mindset could let people feel more justified in violating others rights.
1.6.9.4.4. Con: Since people have more rights and protections than animals, dehumanization is not likely to get enacted from this influence.
1.6.9.4.5. Con: People might likely be more dehumanized, as people who bother animals might find people as an alternative source to treat poorly when they go vegan.
1.6.9.5. Pro: Although the idea of everyone following a vegan diet is apparently ludicrous, it has been explored before, in the BBC Docu-comedy [Carnage](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/carnage-review-bbc-iplayer-simon-amstell-vegan-comedy-actually-funny-a7636871.html), showing how a society could function with veganism.
1.6.9.5.1. Pro: The comedy [effectively satirises](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/fran-carruthers/carnage_b_15560476.html) unethical parts of our society that we currently take for granted, indicating how considering the world from a vegan perspective can improve our moral clarity
1.6.9.6. Con: Vegan farming pushes for plants grown around the world, which can actually push people off native land taken for farming or [raise prices of foods in other countries](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html) to fulfill the Western diet. Veganism that isn't locally grown supports Western colonialism of poor agricultural industries.
1.6.10. Con: Some [specific methods](https://meat.tamu.edu/ansc-307-honors/kosher-halal/) of animal slaughter are considered perfectly ethical in some religions and cultures.
1.6.10.1. Pro: Religious procedures protect what is sacred: the tradition/religion, one's/customer's' body \(not eating what's 'unclean'\), and animals \(their spirit is especially treated with dignity\).
1.6.11. Con: The morals would not be justified if it comes at a cost or conflict with other important or grander values or people \(lives, societies, etc.\).
1.6.11.1. Pro: Global adoption of the vegan diet would restrict the growth of human civilization.
1.6.11.1.1. Pro: Livestock farming can take place across a range of diverse climatic and environmental regions meaning that this type of agriculture is potentially [less geographically-constrained](https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture#global-agricultural-land-use-today) than arable farming.
1.6.11.1.1.1. Con: Rice and beans can be grown in some of the worst arable agriculture conditions imaginable \([USDA Hardiness Zones](https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/) 9b-10a\) and is a staple food in poorer parts of developing nations including [China](http://adoptionnutrition.org/nutrition-by-country/china/). [Meat dependence increases with a nations wealth, not decreases.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Per-capita-gross-domestic-product-GDP-and-meat-consumption-by-country-2005-source_fig2_273483292)
1.6.11.1.1.2. Con: This can only work if the farmed animals are fed with by-products or scrap material, otherwise the fodder require arable farmlands.
1.6.11.1.1.2.1. Pro: Countries that don't have a lot of arable farmland available to them still need to import fodder from other places of the world.
1.6.11.1.2. Con: A vegan society offers the best way to manage resources.
1.6.11.1.2.1. Pro: With non-traditional farming methods that are developing in modern society such as [vertical](http://www.verticalfarm.nl/) [farming](https://www.wur.nl/nl/Dossiers/dossier/Verticale-landbouw.htm), the production of crops can be hugely increased, while world population growth is expected to stop at [11 billion people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E)(Minute 22:50).
1.6.11.1.2.2. Con: Many vegan foods put more pressure on water resources.
1.6.11.1.2.2.1. Con: People can [eat the vegan foods that use little water](https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2011-WaterFootprintCrops.pdf) and resources to grow \(such as fruits, vegetables, and sweeteners like lettuce, tomatoes, and cane sugar\) instead of ones that use more than meat \(such as seeds like chocolate, coffee, and vanilla\). \(p. 1577\)
1.6.11.1.2.2.2. Pro: In terms of water use, chicken is more efficient than most legumes and even broccoli when considering the value of protein in each food. Chicken is also more efficient than nuts as a measure of land area per unit protein produced.
1.6.11.1.2.2.2.1. Con: "The Water Footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat \(around 30 L g−1 protein\) is 1.5 times larger than for pulses \(20 L g−1 protein\)." [Arjen Y Hoekstra](http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Hoekstra-2014-Water-for-animal-products_1.pdf)
1.6.11.1.2.3. Pro: There are and will be too many people on earth for everyone to eat meat.
1.6.11.1.2.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.5.
1.6.11.1.2.3.2. Con: There are other factors in world hunger other than not eating meat, such as access to and waste of food. Addressing these could potentially allow more people to live on Earth, even by eating meat.
1.6.11.1.2.3.3. Pro: Even though veganism is increasing rapidly in [multiple countries](https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/5-surprising-studies-that-prove-veganism-is-growing-around-the-world), the demand for meat worldwide is expected to [go up](http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf) too as the population grows. All humans to being vegan would prevent this trend from happening before overpopulation effects due to eating meat cause the world population to peak and then decline.
1.6.11.1.2.3.4. Con: -> See 1.2.6.5.
1.6.11.1.2.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.
1.6.11.1.2.5. Pro: Animal products going to waste are [much worse](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150814091148.htm) and [more likely](http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/) than vegan foods to go to waste.
1.6.11.1.2.5.1. Pro: Animal product waste does not stop when [resources are strained](https://www.truthordrought.com/single-post/2016/08/30/Drought-Stricken-California-Water-Contributes-to-US-Dairy-Cheese-%E2%80%9CSurplus%E2%80%9D), such as [during a drought](https://www.truthordrought.com/single-post/2016/10/13/Guess-Who-Dumped-13200-Olympic-Pools-Worth-of-California-Water), when they should be conserved instead. Vegan foods would lessen the cause of and recovery from natural disasters easier.
1.6.11.1.2.5.2. Pro: The difference \(between vegan and non-vegan foods\) really separates when foods are processed \(more waste occurs then\).
1.6.11.1.2.5.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.9.3.1.5.2.1.
1.6.11.1.2.5.4. Con: Eventually all food breaks down into fertilizer, but animal products and plants have equally difficult byproducts that require more processing and take longer to break down, from [bones](https://ekko.world/how-to-recycle-bones/177451) to [nut shells](http://thegreenhome.co.uk/feature/uses-for-pistachio-shells/).
1.6.11.1.2.5.5. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.6.
1.6.11.1.2.6. Pro: Vegan products are more energy efficient.
1.6.11.1.2.6.1. Pro: Growing and producing meat consumes more [fossil fuel energy](http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549) than plant-based food.
1.6.11.1.2.6.2. Pro: Fur coats are [unnecessary](http://www.haveyoupackedthecamera.com/blog/articles/antarctica/antarcticaClothingOuterLayer.htm) for warmth in all conditions, and they also require [15x](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1366983/How-ethical-fur-fashion-industrys-cynical-yet.html) as much energy to produce than non-fur equivalents.
1.6.11.1.2.6.3. Pro: Vegan food requires less processing than animal products.
1.6.11.1.2.6.3.1. Pro: Vegans can avoid cooking, while many animal products require cooking to avoid food-borne illnesses.
1.6.11.1.2.6.3.1.1. Con: Humans can eat and digest raw meat, but often cooking makes it more flavorful.
1.6.11.1.2.6.3.1.2. Pro: Raw milk is known for a host of [pathogens](https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html) if not cooked.
1.6.11.1.2.6.3.1.3. Pro: Some animal products can avoid cooking, especially freshly-killed animals. However, it is a rarity for omnivores to avoid cooking, whereas the opposite occurs with vegans.
1.6.11.1.2.6.3.1.3.1. Pro: Animals like humans [cannot eat](https://www.geek.com/science/geek-answers-why-can-animals-eat-raw-meat-but-we-cant-1593883/) raw meat without the possibility of health issues. However humans can still and do eat raw meat.
1.6.11.1.2.6.3.2. Con: Looking at all the steps, vegan foods tend to have a lot too \(except if picked by the one eating it\), from buying seeds, to planting, watering, picking, packing, shipping, shelving, buying, processing, cooking, serving, and eating.
1.6.11.1.2.6.3.2.1. Con: The term "processed food" usually only applies to the extent to which it is [chemically altered](https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-processed-food). It does not refer to steps in the business supply chain.
1.6.11.1.2.6.3.3. Pro: Vegans do not need to kill their food to eat it because they can pick foliage and fruit, whereas meat-eaters do.
1.6.11.1.2.7. Pro: If people go vegan, they tend to make [healthier and more ethical choices](https://qz.com/91123/vegetarians-live-longer-but-its-not-because-they-dont-eat-meat/). In doing so, they will be more likely pick local foods \(like at farmers markets\), because of their perceived eco and health value.
1.6.11.1.2.7.1. Con: If this includes organic foods, that would be much more harmful for the environment by causing more [deforestation](https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-shows-how-organic-farming-takes-its-toll-on-the-environment).
1.6.11.1.2.8. Con: Not all land is fertile enough to grow crops with high enough vitamin and mineral levels to sustain humans.
1.6.11.1.2.8.1. Pro: If people don't get enough nutrients from their food, they may need to eat more, which in turn uses up more resources.
1.6.11.1.2.9. Pro: Unlike many vegan products, meat production strains scarce natural resources and environments.
1.6.11.1.2.9.1. Pro: Meat production uses large amounts of scarce water.
1.6.11.1.2.9.1.1. Pro: [70%](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment) of the earth's fresh water is used for farming, and producing meat is far less water efficient than producing plants.
1.6.11.1.2.9.1.1.1. Con: -> See 1.6.11.1.2.2.2.
1.6.11.1.2.9.1.2. Pro: Between one and two thirds of fresh water resources are being used for animal agriculture. In the USA [30%](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/water-in-water-out/) of these resources are used on animal farming.
1.6.11.1.2.9.1.3. Pro: A vegan diet has a smaller [water footprint](http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/) allowing more food to be produced given a constant amount of rainfall.
1.6.11.1.2.9.2. Con: Extensive plant farming damages natural fauna by reclaiming its territory.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3. Pro: Meat production wastes food which could be used elsewhere.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.1.1.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.1.2.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.3. Pro: Producing 1kg of meat can require [up to 25kg of grain](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/feed-required-to-produce-one-kilogram-of-meat-or-dairy-product) which instead could be consumed directly.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.1.2.2.1.3.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.4. Con: Looking at [greenhouse gas emissions per 1000 calories](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/18/being-a-vegetarian-might-make-you-feel-environmentally-superior-why-that-may-be-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a84dace56239) of food item, while beef requires 19.18 lbs of emissions, head lettuce requires 18.67 lbs, cucumbers 12.34 lbs, tomatoes 8.29 lbs, and poultry only 4.86 lbs.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.5. Pro: -> See 1.5.8.4.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.6. Pro: If all humans were vegan, we would be more able to feed the population as it is and as it grows. Food grown for meat production would go to the people, as would water.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.6.1. Pro: In the United States, replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed [350 million additional people](http://www.pnas.org/content/115/15/3804) from food loss alone.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.9.1.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.6.3. Con: -> See 1.6.11.1.2.2.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.6.4. Pro: On top of grazing land, around 40% of the worlds grain is fed to cattle to top up their diets. Therefore reducing meat production would also reduce grain use without reducing the number of calories produced.[U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat).
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.6.4.1. Con: The land use argument is assuming that humans can just survive by eating grains. If someone would try, he would die very soon because essential nutrients are missing. In reality a vegan diet is relying on an extreme variety of low quality food. Vegetables and fruits have low nutritional value but use huge amount of land.
1.6.11.1.2.9.3.6.5. Con: We already produce [more food](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html) than we actually need, we could simply share it better. There is no need for veganism to do that.
1.6.11.1.2.9.4. Pro: Some vegan foods \(especially trees such as [maple syrup](https://www.massmaple.org/about-maple-syrup/how-sugar-maple-trees-work/) and fruit\) allow the native environment to be preserved while benefiting the plant that the food is taken from.
1.6.11.1.2.9.4.1. Con: Monoculture forestry can cause more environmental issues than it solves because it cuts down forests that absorb more carbon than the plants put there instead.
1.6.11.1.2.9.4.1.1. Con: Soy cultivation \(used in meat-alternatives\) is carried out in areas previously cleared for animal agriculture \(which is the actual main driver of deforestation, especially in the Amazon \(see [Table 2](http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf)\)\).
1.6.11.1.2.9.4.2. Pro: Tapping maple trees when the sap is flowing down to match air pressure alleviates the trees from too much pressure \(that reaches [40psi](https://www.berkshiresweetgold.com/science--heritage.html)\).
1.6.11.1.2.9.4.3. Pro: The damage to maple trees is minimal and could be just as much as a [woodpecker's hole](http://www.caryinstitute.org/newsroom/learn-about-science-maple-syrup) \(especially if the spout's placed in one\).
1.6.11.1.2.9.4.4. Con: Vegan foods decrease biodiversity through monocultures and growing in biodiverse regions, so ability of the vegan diet to protect biodiversity is questionable.
1.6.11.1.2.9.5. Con: Having no humans is good for the environment. While it may be technically true, it's not realistic; nor is it realistic to expect the world to be vegan.
1.6.11.1.2.9.6. Pro: [Land use is lowest with a vegan diet](https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/elementa.000116.f002.png/). We could decrease the amount of land we need for food production drastically; allowing for more areas to be taken over by nature, increasing biodiversity in the long run.
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.6.1.3.5.2.1.
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.2. Pro: Meat production wastes land which could be used for other purposes.
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.14.3.7.6.1.
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.2.2. Pro: Currently the rate of raising lifestock on more and more land is not sustainable but more people could be fed in a sustainable fashion if the land used for raising life stock were instead used for growing nutrient dense edible plants.
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.2.3. Pro: As civilization grows, people will need more space and meat will need to be squeezed out for accommodate them, because meat takes up too much space that people need.
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.2.3.1. Pro: This is especially true for when people move to cities, as meat will be much harder to grow near or in cities than crops \(which can easily grow in buildings, like apartments or vertical farms\).
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.2.4. Pro: -> See 1.6.11.1.2.9.3.6.4.
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.3. Con: To grow all the variety of different plants, vegetables and fruits and nuts to make a vegan diet possible, you need much more land. And this land has to be all over the world \(tropical fruits\).
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.4. Pro: Even with ideas for lowering the environmental impact for animal products through animal-based substitutions instead of elimination, like [insects and cultured meat](https://ac.els-cdn.com/S2211912417300056/1-s2.0-S2211912417300056-main.pdf?_tid=529a71bc-046c-4d5a-b53e-b52e252af156&acdnat=1543277335_7cfe943dc4706ed6122323fe4cb09300), the vegan diet still uses the least amount of land.
1.6.11.1.2.9.6.5. Con: Veganism wastes land. The [ovolacto- and lacto-vegetarian diets](https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/) have the highest estimates of carrying capacity overall.
1.6.11.1.2.9.7. Con: The real issue is not about being vegan/omnivorous: it's about intensive breeding and industries of junk food. The Alps are full of farms and little companies that produce salame, cheese, etc. This it is 100  times more environmentally friendly and animal-life respectful than bigger industries that produce vegetable products. If the whole world became vegan it would just penalize little farms like these ones.
1.6.11.1.2.9.7.1. Con: Land used to facilitate animal agriculture \(pasture, grain etc.\) currently takes up around [30% of the Earth's land mass](https://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/chart-shows-worlds-land-used/). The space needed to produce enough meat on these apparently Utopian farms to feed even a tenth of the world population would be [more land mass than we have](http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM). The space would be better utilised on vegetables.
1.6.11.1.2.9.8. Pro: Domesticated animals that get released into the wild could become invasive and devastate ecosystems. One such example is [feral swine](http://www.vainvasivespecies.org/species/feral-swine).
1.6.11.1.2.9.9. Con: -> See 1.4.14.3.7.6.2.
1.6.11.1.2.10. Con: A vegan diet is [less sustainable](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/).
1.6.11.1.2.10.1. Pro: A vegan diet would strain plant populations too; since most previously farmed animals eat plants, plant populations will suffer a double burden of increased human demand and increased animal demand \(due to not slaughtering them for food\).
1.6.11.1.2.10.2. Con: A vegan diet is [more](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/infographic-veganism-and-the-environment/) [sustainable](https://www.veganismbythenumbers.com) [than](https://greenerideal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/vegan-environment.jpg) our current diet, though it is not absolutely ideal.
1.6.11.1.3. Pro: The omnivorous nature of humans is [what allowed them to](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/) develop as they did. Forgoing it may impede future development and evolution.
1.6.11.1.3.1. Con: There are plant foods with similar nutritional properties as meat.
1.6.11.1.3.2. Con: Meat was beneficial in the past times because sometimes the other option was to not eat at all. In current times where people can buy enough food in grocery stores, they can easily access all the nutrients and calories they require to thrive through plant-based sources.
1.6.11.1.3.3. Pro: The development of human cognition and the brain was [greatly advanced](https://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html) in evolution as meat consumption increased \(especially when [cooked and pounded](https://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter)\).
1.6.11.1.3.3.1. Pro: There is [much evidence](https://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter) in paleoanthropological science that the size of human brains \(i.e. large in relation to body size\) is related to the subsistence strategy adaptation of meat and seafood eating in the Old World, as far back with our genetic ancestors as Austrolopithecus \(perhaps the first stone tool user, as some have reasonably argued\).
1.6.11.1.3.3.1.1. Con: Humans belong to the great apes \(hominids\) - which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos - all of which eat plant based diets.
1.6.11.1.3.3.2. Pro: Eating meat caused humans to evolve smaller guts to send energy to the brain faster. This was great, because our larger brains now use [20%](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/) of our body's total energy intake.
1.6.11.1.3.3.3. Con: [With cooking, digestible starches](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280735260_The_Importance_of_Dietary_Carbohydrate_in_Human_Evolution) \(pg 253\) continued the rise of brain growth when meat could not. This accelerated our brain size increases faster than meat did \(during the Mid-to-Late Pleistocene\).
1.6.11.1.3.3.4. Pro: Evolution clearly shows that the more we evolved, the more meat we ate, and the correlation between [brain evolution](https://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html) and meat intake is well known in science. This switch is verified from [Habilis to Erectus](http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/11/22/1514032.htm).
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.1. Con: Correlation is not causation.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.2. Con: This is no argument to keep eating meat nowadays when our brains are evolved already.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3. Con: The rise of an expanding brain, terrestriality, and bipedalism led to smaller guts, which [led us to eating meat](http://publications.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/88p269.pdf), rather than the other way around.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1. Pro: The process of both acquiring and cooking meat required a high degree of intelligence in the first place.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1.1. Con: Earliest [evidence](http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/09-archaeologists-find-earliest-evidence-of-humans-cooking-with-fire) of cooking dates back 1 million years, where [meat consumption](https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273) dates back more than 2.5 million years. Most of our [brain growth](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-has-human-brain-evolved/) has happened in the past 2 million years.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1.1.1. Con: The link between brain growth, intelligence, and eating meat is [questionable](http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking) at most. Correlation does not equal causation. Meat-eating lacks proof of causation for intelligence.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1.1.1.1. Pro: The climb of intelligence started [10M yrs ago](http://www.rupestreweb.info/mimesis.html), long before we ate meat. Intelligence is often mistakenly attributed to meat-eating, since their co-occurrence could be coincidental \(meat-eating started when intelligence exponentially exploded, around [2.6M yrs ago](http://nmnh.typepad.com/100years/2015/03/early-humans-could-have-scavenged-from-lions-lunches.html)\).
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Intelligence really took off when we started walking upright, around [6M yrs ago](http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains). After [2M years](http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains), new environments and climate change intellectually stimulated our brains, which caused further growth. So it's abrupt lifestyle changes, not meat itself, that is the driver for brain growth, .
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1.1.1.2. Pro: Although the brain growth from meat might be why humans became intelligent, brain growth could also come from a larger muscular structure from hunting \(as seen with [Neanderthals](http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking)\), which we do not have now \(even though we still eat meat\).
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1.1.1.3. Pro: Human brains have been shrinking for the [past 20,000 years](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/), even though we are becoming more intelligent and probably eating more meat than ever. It is just that we do not need to hunt for meat and intelligence comes externally rather than internally now with computers and the internet.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1.2. Pro: Humans first ate meat [using tools](http://nmnh.typepad.com/100years/2015/03/early-humans-could-have-scavenged-from-lions-lunches.html). The intelligence to make tools did not originate from eating meat.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1.2.1. Pro: While it is true that being able to digest a variety of foods has been an evolutionary advantage; many of our closest relatives \(primates\) are entirely herbivorous. If meat was the only driving factor of evolution, other omnivorous or carnivorous animals would be ahead of us.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.3.1.3. Con: The acquiring of meat at this time has no relation to how meat made us intelligent. Humans likely ate leftover carcasses that other animals killed themselves, which required only moderate intelligence. It was only after eating meat that our brains grew larger, fostered later by cooking.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.4. Con: If meat improves brain size, then we'd keep getting larger brains. However, human brain size has been recently \([last 20,000 years](https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/why-did-our-brains-stop-expanding-001791)\) decreasing, due to multiple factors that do not relate to eating meat.
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.4.1. Con: Brain size might've shrunk recently due to the [introduction](https://usfblogs.usfca.edu/biol100/2018/03/20/why-are-our-brains-shrinking/) of grains in the diet from agriculture \(like corn\).
1.6.11.1.3.3.4.4.1.1. Con: Brain size shrink is possibly due to becoming more efficient and skillful in certain ways \(like "[quicker, more agile](https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/if-modern-humans-are-so-smart-why-are-our-brains-shrinking)" thinking\) through pruning. So it's plants that are continuing our brain evolution, rather than meat.
1.6.11.1.3.3.5. Con: Brain size increase is more associated with [increasing bipedalism \(what makes us human\), forming civilization \(by grouping together\), etc.](http://publications.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/88p269.pdf), which started with [Australopithecus](https://www.thoughtco.com/australopithecus-1093049), which transitioned from trees, and had a [soft fruit/seed based](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/97/25/13506.full.pdf) diet and couldn't process meat well.
1.6.11.1.3.4. Pro: We [survived](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-climate-change-may-have-shaped-human-evolution-180952885/) the rapid climate change and environmental changes \(around 1.7 to 2.5 million years ago\) by turning to meat, whereas all [hominins](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hominin) in genus [Australopithecus](http://slideplayer.com/slide/4892880/16/images/19/A+hominid+evolutionary+tree.jpg) went extinct, as many were vegan \([1](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717084813.htm), [2](http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot-human-origins/australopithecus-sediba-was-vegetarian)\). History may repeat itself if we devolve to this unsuccessful outcome again.
1.6.11.1.3.4.1. Con: The environmental changes [of millions of years ago](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-climate-change-may-have-shaped-human-evolution-180952885/) will look much different than today's manmade version \(i.e. [desertification](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/16/desertification-climate-change)\). Worldwide veganism would likely be needed then. Animals \(like [cattle](https://phys.org/news/2015-11-cattle-dying-south-africa-drought.html)\) don't handle droughts well, but crops, like [sesame](https://www.greenprophet.com/2019/09/sesame-ideal-crop-for-drought-regions-in-the-us/), thrive in them.
1.6.11.1.3.5. Con: The same could be said about plants. In fact, without plants, we would not be the modern humans we are.
1.6.11.1.3.5.1. Pro: One hominid, paranthropus boisei, had around an [80%](https://www.ibtimes.com/nutcracker-man-diet-extinct-species-early-human-survived-tiger-nuts-not-meat-1535834) diet of tiger nuts \(not meat\), which supported a large brain around [2.4-1.4M years ago](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2536015/Ancient-ancestors-ate-diet-tiger-nuts-worms-grasshoppers.html).
1.6.11.1.3.5.1.1. Pro: Even though it went extinct, so did all hominid species except the homo sapiens of today. It was not due to their plant diet being insufficient for them.
1.6.11.1.3.5.1.2. Pro: Tiger nuts allowed humans to survive for [1 million years](https://www.ibtimes.com/nutcracker-man-diet-extinct-species-early-human-survived-tiger-nuts-not-meat-1535834) of climate change.
1.6.11.1.3.6. Con: Since meat remains survive better than plant ones, it is difficult to really know what diet made us human without the complete picture \([p. 255](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280735260_The_Importance_of_Dietary_Carbohydrate_in_Human_Evolution)(Faunal remains \(with cut marks suggesting butchery\) survive in numerous Middle Pleistocene sites and have been interpreted as evidence of early hominin meat consumption. In contrast, evidence for plant foods rarely survives, making it difﬁcult to estimate their contribution and to reconstruct ancestral diet on the basis of physical remains alone.)\).
1.6.11.1.3.7. Con: However, none of us would be here without our ancestors \(both [primate](http://animalia.bio/bonobo) and [human](https://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/early-human-diets) \(pre-3.5 million years ago\)\) having a predominantly plant-based diet either \(like Austropithecenes, from which the genus Homo came from, were predominantly [soft fruit/seed eaters](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/97/25/13506.full.pdf)\).
1.6.11.1.4. Con: Not in every way does it restrict societal growth in terms of productivity and size, just redirects it in a different direction \(that provides benefits not currently seen\).
1.6.11.1.4.1. Pro: The world population growth is expected to stop at between [8 and 11 billion people](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/IFsWorldPopulationHistoryForecastII.jpg) within [this century](https://phys.org/news/2014-10-world-population-peak.html). With veganism, population will end up closer to the top of the range \([1](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian), [2](https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html)\).
1.6.11.1.4.1.1. Con: Maximizing the number of humans alive on this planet is not necessarily a good thing.
1.6.11.1.4.1.1.1. Pro: Even if maximized, there will be a limit to the earth's carrying capacity somewhere down the road. This means population control should be considered sooner or later. Changing to an \(arguably\) less optimal diet is just a way of kicking the can down the road.
1.6.11.1.4.2. Pro: The word civilisation now means more than living in cities, it entails ideas of moral progress and codes of conduct. Someone who is uncivilised is regarded as brutish and lacking compassion.
1.6.11.1.4.3. Pro: Eating meat reflects poorly on humanity; it is a [barbaric](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34541077) and primitive practice that incorporates into the definition of what being a human is. Veganism is more civilized and will allow civilizations to grow through its positivity instead of being held back by the negative attributes of producing and eating meat.
1.6.11.1.4.3.1. Pro: The compassion that veganism brings allows for more openness that allows civilization to grow. With the openness, more lives can exist \(human and non-human\). The bigger the population, the greater the success of a civilization \(which is one of its purposes\).
1.6.11.1.5. Con: Population growth is not a goal in itself to strive for. Quality of life is a better goal. This might require a lower population.
1.6.11.1.5.1. Pro: The word ['civilisation'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization) has a far broader meaning than just population numbers.
1.6.11.1.6. Pro: -> See 1.2.8.2.2.
1.6.11.1.7. Con: Many of our achievements as a civilization have relied on controlling our violent and destructive tendencies and being compassionate instead. Choosing non-violence \(or minimal violence\) when it comes to our food is the next logical step in the development of a civilized population that grows beyond its biological instincts.
1.6.11.1.7.1. Pro: [Geniuses](https://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/02/the-worlds-greatest-geniuses-are-vegetarians/) \(from ancient to modern times and East to West\) form from practicing non-violence, which includes their [diets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegetarians): Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, da Vinci, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Tesla, Edison, Tolstoy, Franklin, Luther King, Van Gogh, Kafka, Henry Ford, Stephen Hawkins, Gaudí, Alan Calverd, Edward Witten, Brian Greene, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Carl Lewis, Matt Groening, etc.
1.6.11.1.8. Pro: To date, no \(entirely\) vegan civilizations have been able to sustain themselves across a long period of time.
1.6.11.1.8.1. Pro: There was the start of a vegan civilization before, called the [Fruitlands](http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/louisa-may-alcott-10-child-laborer-fruitlands-commune/), although it didn't last.
1.6.11.1.8.2. Pro: There were vegetarian [Tolstoy colonies/groups](https://www.ic.org/wiki/tolstoy-farm/#The_end_of_the_campaign:) that didn't make it \(although its purpose was intentionally designed that way\).
1.6.11.1.8.3. Con: For hundreds of years, the 40% of the Irish \(not all, but still\) [survived on only potatoes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVbshrHSRo4), and if it not were for blight, would be able to continue to do so.
1.6.11.1.8.4. Con: It is quite possible that there were vegan civilizations, but due to the label only being developed in the 20th century and lack of documentation or accuracy, it can be difficult to find them.
1.6.11.1.8.5. Con: Australopithecenes [started the formation of civilization](http://publications.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/88p269.pdf), lived for [millions of years](https://earthhow.com/human-evolution-timeline/), and survived on [soft fruit and seeds](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/97/25/13506.full.pdf), as they weren't able to eat meat.
1.6.11.1.9. Con: Not all growth of human civilization is positive, sustainable, or desired, so we shouldn't keep those around. What's better is civilization taking the action needed to be where it should be to reach its potential \(and if that means veganism, so be it\), even if it does come at the cost of growth.
1.6.11.1.9.1. Con: -> See 1.4.5.6.6.4.1.
1.6.11.1.9.2. Pro: Civilizations with animal consumption grow too quickly that it overshoots sustainability to where it comes at the cost of the individual and society. Veganism fixes that by prioritizing the individual to care for their needs and slow society down to the right pace enough for them to keep up to contribute to and grow with it.
1.6.11.1.9.2.1. Pro: Compassion is the highest form of living. Through a vegan lifestyle, we can align our actions with our morals to elevate our selves and existence. We can be better off than we are now, increasing the collective well-being of society.
1.6.11.1.9.2.2. Pro: Being vegan and collaborating with everyone worldwide on this claim would give people purpose and meaning in their lives as moral benefits attained by individuals that human society collectively gains.
1.6.11.1.9.2.2.1. Con: People gain purpose and meaning through participating in animal agriculture and consuming animal products. These moral benefits enhance human society too.
1.6.11.1.9.2.2.2. Pro: Vegan food is a sharing food. Crops come in such large quantities \(like at harvest or the produce itself, like watermelon and pumpkin\), that one person alone cannot eat it. Through learning to give and share, people can start to collectively work together, which provides moral benefits.
1.6.11.1.9.2.2.2.1. Con: Animal products come in large quantities too \(such as cattle\), so sharing does not only exist in a vegan world.
1.6.11.1.10. Con: Animal consumption \(or anything for that matter\) restricts civilization growth too. So it's not a reason for civilization not to go vegan. Instead, if the benefits outweigh the costs, then that's what will matter in knowing what to decide upon.
1.6.11.1.10.1. Pro: Eating meat restricts civilizations due to the costs on society with health care \(as meat causes many chronic diseases that are expensive whether they get treated or not\). The cost savings from transitioning to veganism will be worth the switch.
1.6.11.1.11. Con: Veganism restricts growth less than animal consumption does \(especially in the long run\), so it's worth implementing.
1.6.11.1.11.1. Pro: Eating meat will restrict where human civilization can go and grow, due to it being a major contributory factor in [climate change](http://meatclimatechange.org/).
1.6.11.1.11.1.1. Pro: Climate change causes [mass migrations, which in turn threatens food security](https://www.kcet.org/shows/earth-focus/episodes/climate-migration), which in turn impacts the growth of civilization.
1.6.11.1.11.1.2. Pro: The [sea level rise](https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/File/SS6M_SLR_Population_PercentCroppedScaled_650_425_s_c1_c_c.jpg) that comes with global warming will definitely impact the growth of human civilization. What was once land would not be available for building on and populating anymore.
1.6.11.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.
1.6.11.3. Con: With there being many examples of moral advancements throughout history that came at costs and conflicted with other important or grander values or people, it is not valid to say that veganism's morals aren't justified because they may do these as well.
1.6.11.4. Pro: -> See 1.6.4.2.
1.6.11.5. Pro: Academic and laboratory research, some fields more than others, like biology, rely on [animal testing and experimentation](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/peta-study-finds-animal-testing-in-federal-labs-on-the-increase/) to write research papers. Many academics, scientists, and industries would lose grants, funding, and jobs if everyone went vegan.
1.6.11.5.1. Con: The public does not favor animal testing, so the majority of people will be happier with the world going vegan, especially when there are [alternatives](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096).
1.6.11.5.2. Pro: The pharmaceutical industry in the US would not exist right now without animal testing, as it is part of [drug research process](https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143475.htm).
1.6.11.5.2.1. Con: The testing itself could still take place on human volunteers.
1.6.11.5.2.1.1. Con: In the primary stages of drug research, the risk to human health may be so high that even using volunteers would be unethical. This is why animals are tested on prior to human trials.
1.6.11.5.2.2. Con: -> See 1.5.7.1.1.
1.6.11.5.3. Con: While veganism strives to reduce animal suffering wherever possible, it would be a gradual development and not an overnight shock. We can start with food, where we already have many satisfactory alternatives, and worry about animal testing when we have more efficient ways \(e.g. better computer models\) for testing in biology.
1.6.11.5.3.1. Pro: Also, in a vegan world, animal testing might not exist due to its ineffectiveness. Instead, drugs would just be given to humans and weeded out based on how the public reacts \(known through doctor visits and such\).
1.6.11.5.4. Con: The pharmaceutical industry would decrease anyway in a vegan world. The population would be healthier due to the new diet, needing less medications than ever before.
1.6.11.5.5. Con: In-vivo/observational academic/research fields may increase due to veganism, rather than decrease, due to the lack of disruption that veganism causes to the world.
1.6.11.5.5.1. Pro: If wildlife can survive and thrive, there will be opportunities in studying it that are not possible before. This can range from learning about the wildlife itself to the tourism trends it creates.
1.6.11.6. Pro: Not all people share the same ethical principles, so a vegan lifestyle doesn't bring moral benefits to all humans.
1.6.11.6.1. Pro: Culture can influence lawmaking. If most people become vegan out of their own free will, then laws may follow to extend it to everyone.
1.6.11.6.1.1. Pro: Veganism imposes the will of the masses onto the few that do not comply, which is [groupthink](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink).
1.6.11.6.1.2. Pro: The restrictions could have short-term implications on businesses, economies, and individuals. restaurants would have to change their menus to vegan food in order to comply with laws. This could run up costs for them in the short-term.
1.6.11.6.1.3. Pro: The lack of freedom from the enforcement of vegan laws could have long-term individualistic implications. The laws could impact health, and could lead to increasing mental health issues.
1.6.11.6.1.3.1. Pro: The controlling tendencies of society to conform to veganism could lead to stress in a person's life, especially impactful during the formative years.
1.6.11.6.1.4. Pro: Law enforcement might get more severe under a vegan world, especially within the transition phase.
1.6.11.6.1.4.1. Pro: This could cost governments more money.
1.6.11.6.1.4.2. Pro: Law enforcement might take a more big brother omnipresence to counteract any betrayers of veganism.
1.6.11.6.1.4.2.1. Pro: People might get into trouble with law enforcement by deviating from vegan principles.
1.6.11.6.1.4.2.1.1. Con: This already happens, as people do go to jail and get fined for animal abuse, fishing in protected waters, and cutting down plants in protected zones.
1.6.11.6.1.5. Con: In America, there are many lawmakers who hold personal stakes in the meat industry, making it difficult to pass laws limiting livestock production and promoting veganism.
1.6.11.6.1.5.1. Pro: For example, former Chief of Staff at the USDA, [Dale Moore](https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/70108783), was also former Chief Lobbyist to the Beef Industry in Washington. [Lester Crawford](https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/70108783), former Head of the FDA was the former Executive Vice President of the National Food Processors Association.
1.6.11.6.1.5.2. Con: With enough people that create enough demand, laws could be passed in favor of citizens. This could happen with worldwide veganism, as there would be enough people to override those in the meat industry.
1.6.11.6.2. Con: All people do share the same ethical principles: unnecessary murder is immoral, abusing someone is immoral, causing intentional pain or suffering to anyone for no necessary reason is immoral. If that weren’t true then there would be no such thing as good or bad as all behaviour would be completely acceptable: murder, rape, theft, etc. would be by default moral and acceptable. Therefore veganism brings moral benefits to all humans.
1.6.11.7. Con: We cannot achieve peace, if we are not peaceful. Murdering animals is not an act of peace. So long as we treat animals as if their lives do not matter, we will not be at peace. Veganism helps the world become peaceful.
1.6.11.8. Con: Since veganism is a polarizing issue, if everyone's vegan, there'd be less conflict. Fewer conflicts would be more moral \(in terms of behavior\) for humans to achieve. Less fighting creates a more ethical world overall too.
1.6.11.8.1. Con: By this logic, the same goal of less conflict could also be achieved by having nobody be vegan.
1.6.11.8.1.1. Pro: It's much easier to make the few people who are vegan not vegan than the opposite: practically the entire population follow the practicees of a few.
1.6.11.9. Pro: If people can't manage the vegan diet properly and get malnourished or starve for the sake of keeping with one's vegan beliefs, then it's not worth it.
1.6.12. Con: Some aspects of veganism involve racism. Racism could potentially get worse, through veganism, if implemented fully.
1.6.12.1. Pro: Veganism is [typically depicted](https://www.foodrepublic.com/2018/01/31/veganism-white/) using white, affluent individuals despite its non-white roots.
1.6.12.1.1. Pro: The foods most associated with vegan meals [originated in](https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/vegan-race-wars-white-veganism) communities of color.
1.6.12.1.2. Con: In countries where the majority of the population is white, it is reasonable that a certain proportion of the depiction is of white people. The lack of representation of POC is a general problem of those countries that is not caused by, but rather reflected in veganism \(among other domains\).
1.6.12.2. Pro: [Advertisements](https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/the-problem-with-veganism-and-racism-that-no-one-is-talking-about) of veganism can often involve problematic comparisons to the suffering undergone by minority communities.
1.6.12.2.1. Pro: PETA released an [advertisement](https://civileats.com/2020/08/26/is-the-vegan-movement-ready-to-reckon-with-racism/) in which cartoon animals took the knee and called for the end of speciesism.
1.6.12.2.2. Pro: Many pro-vegan publications and media productions have been criticised for problematically comparing the suffering of animals in the food industry to the plight of Jewish prisoners during the [holocaust](https://medium.com/\@spurgo.de/animal-holocaust-comparison-and-other-problems-366b920ee073).
1.6.12.2.2.1. Pro: PETA released an [advertisement](http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/28/peta.holocaust/) that compared the poultry industry to the Holocaust.
1.6.12.2.2.2. Pro: The contraversial film '[Earthlings](https://www.foodiebuddha.com/2009/07/13/earthlings-an-animal-rights-documentary-that-preaches-to-the-choir-but-fails-to-advance-the-cause-guest-blogger/)' compares humans treatment of animals to the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Second World War.
1.6.12.2.3. Pro: It is common for pro-vegan media to compare animal use to [slavery](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/meat-free-monday-vegans-need-stop-comparing-treatment-animals-american-slavery-10319301.html).
1.6.12.2.4. Con: These comparisons are only problematic when we misconstrue them as equating the value of human life with animal life, when really they're comparing our moral considerations of humans versus animals.
1.6.12.3. Con: Some people use racism as an [excuse](https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/black-folks-animal-rights-mvmt/) to not go vegan, because they're handling enough. Worldwide veganism would decrease rampant moral self-licensing of omnivores.
1.6.12.4. Con: Many vegan companies pro-actively tackle racism, such as [Beyond Meat](https://www.beyondmeat.com/whats-new/beyond-meat-x-social-change-fund/) and [Miyoko's](https://vegnews.com/2020/6/vegan-cheese-brand-miyoko-s-donates-to-black-lives-matter-to-fight-inherent-racism-in-the-food-system).
1.6.12.5. Con: Veganism is actually used to [fight racism](https://raisevegan.com/vegan-fast-food-chain-pledges-to-donate-100-of-profits-to-fight-racism/) as much as encourage it, so they should cancel each other out eventually.
1.6.12.6. Con: [Animal products invoke racism](https://www.plantbasednews.org/lifestyle/doctor-pro-dairy-usda-dietary-guidelines-racist) too, so the two should be handled separately.
1.7. Con: Veganism is incompatible with some religions, cultures and traditions.
1.7.1. Con: Traditions that cause harm to sentient beings should be eliminated or replaced.
1.7.1.1. Con: Many of these traditions require the process to be as painless and humane as possible.
1.7.1.1.1. Pro: Slaughter of animal using Kosher or halal rules makes the process [as quick and painless](https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-18562,00.html) as possible.
1.7.1.1.1.1. Con: As the animal is not stunned before Kosher or Halal slaughter, the animal often [reacts violently](https://youtu.be/KezHKbUzy0A), showing that it is indeed painful.
1.7.1.1.2. Con: The unnecessary slaughter of a sentient being is never humane.
1.7.1.1.3. Con: No ritual slaughter technique is specifically designed to minimize suffering. Thus, all produce unnecessary suffering.
1.7.1.2. Pro: Eliminating harmful traditions will create a world filled with more happiness
1.7.2. Pro: Some cultures have non-vegan traditions.
1.7.2.1. Pro: The consumption of animal products forms a fundamental part of many cultures and traditions around the world.
1.7.2.1.1. Con: -> See 1.7.1.
1.7.2.2. Pro: In [Mi’kmaq culture](https://humanrightsareanimalrights.com/2015/04/03/margaret-robinson-indigenous-veganism-feminist-natives-do-eat-tofu/), the killing of a moose symbolized a boy’s entry into manhood. So when you challenge the hunting traditions, you’re challenging how Mi’kmaq men understand their masculinity.
1.7.2.2.1. Con: There's nothing wrong with challenging cultural beliefs.
1.7.2.2.2. Con: Challenging cultures that are unethical is more important than preserving traditions. For instance, tiger body parts and elephant tusks are a common ingredient in [Traditional Chinese Medicine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine) but have been outlawed. Other cultural traditions include owning people as [slaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States).
1.7.2.3. Con: Non-western cultures eat way less animal products, which is the main problem with western civilization.
1.7.2.4. Pro: In [South Korea](https://www.vegansisters.org/travel/vegan-traveller-south-korea/), for example, it is quite difficult to stay on a vegan diet as meat, fish and egg is very prevalent. For example, the stock for any Korean soup consists of dried anchovies.
1.7.2.4.1. Con: As our understanding of umami \("meaty taste"\) and which compounds it's made of is constantly growing, we can develop good-tasting ways for making broth, condiments and sauces that don't require the use of animal flesh.
1.7.2.5. Con: Tradition can, realistically, still change over time.
1.7.2.5.1. Pro: For example, slavery was once a tradition but is illegal today.
1.7.2.5.1.1. Con: Slavery is [still legal](https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost-half-the-countries-of-the-world-new-research-115596) in almost half of the countries of the world.
1.7.2.5.1.2. Pro: Slavery was [abolished](https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/time-line/) across the British Empire in 1838.
1.7.2.5.1.3. Pro: The passing of the [Thirteenth Amendment](https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/thirteenth-amendment) in 1865 abolished slavery in the US.
1.7.2.6. Con: Cultural traditions centered around meat \(like hunting, ritual slaughter for certain spiritual / religious events\) are not the main focus of veganism. Although vegan ethics would dictate the abolishment of such practices, the vegan movement is currently more concerned with animal agriculture on a large, global scale. A small native tribe owning a herd of goats is a relatively small problem and vegans are not trying to take away animals from people who actually depend on them.
1.7.2.7. Pro: Veganism is [incompatible with Inuit culture](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions), where \(sustainable and respectful\) seal hunting has been a part of their lives for centuries.
1.7.2.7.1. Pro: Since very [little vegetation survives](https://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_groups/fp_inuit3.html) in the Arctic, if the Inuit were to switch to a vegan diet they would likely starve and possibly die.
1.7.2.7.2. Pro: Seal hunting bans put in place by colonizers have created economic scarcity for Inuit people and forced them into [multi-generational poverty](https://medium.com/gbc-college-english-lemonade/seal-hunting-in-canada-why-it-is-important-to-inuit-communities-7862023b0c71).
1.7.2.8. Con: Just because something is tradition [doesn't mean](http://yvfi.ca/tradition) it's morally permissible and should be continued.
1.7.3. Con: Since meat is not biologically necessary, the primary reason humans still eat meat is because of social conditioning which can be changed
1.7.3.1. Con: Social conditioning with regards to meat-eating is difficult to change.
1.7.3.1.1. Con: This does not mean we should eat meat, as people can be conditioned to like the taste of vegan foods as well.
1.7.3.1.1.1. Pro: A few generations ago, people were conditioned to be skeptical of homosexuality and still we have legalized gay marriage today. It is possible to change social conditioning.
1.7.3.1.2. Pro: People might get angry if something they are used to for long and is ingrained into their lives so well suddenly gets taken away from them.
1.7.3.1.2.1. Con: Meat would not be taken away overnight.
1.7.3.2. Pro: Young children are born with a natural aversion towards harming animals \(except in [rare circumstances](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry)\), including due to [fearfulness](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080227121840.htm). They get [conditioned](https://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/is-it-normal-for-your-preschooler-to-hurt-animals/) by people around them later on to act differently towards animals. Having less sympathy towards animals probably prepares them to be less cautious towards eating meat \(even though animal aversion is in our nature\).
1.7.4. Pro: If all humans became vegan, then humanity would lose a big part of its collective culture. Keeping around a small portion of the culture is desirable for educational settings, re-enactments, historians, etc.
1.7.4.1. Con: Performative art and studying cultural heritage is possible without actually continuing to kill and eat animals. Just like people don't actually wage war or keep slaves for the sake of historical re-enactment.
1.7.4.2. Con: Progressing veganism for the benefit of humanity supersedes the priority of preserving culture.
1.7.4.2.1. Pro: We should not try to keep the bad and prevent the good aspects from coming into this world because culture is stopping us from that. That just allows people to get away with negative behaviors while not embracing positive ones, which deteriorates the fabric of society instead of strengthening it.
1.7.4.2.2. Pro: Some cultural practices are unlikable by even the people within the culture, that they try to get away from it \([1](http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_do_young_people_not_follow_certain_family_traditions), [2](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/why-nobody-wants-to-go-to_b_4086016.html)\). Keeping around something that even people in the culture do not want anymore and preventing something that people do want does not make logical sense.
1.7.4.2.3. Con: Arguing against trying to protect the few areas and people that veganism doesn't apply to invokes the [appeal to popularity](https://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/appeal_to_popularity_examples/518/) fallacy, which is discriminatory.
1.7.4.2.4. Con: The ongoing practise of traditional, local, culinary habits around the world has intrinsic value akin to world heritage sites.
1.7.4.3. Pro: The observation of a living system or experience of something directly \(like eating meat\) can be difficult to replicate entirely and may need to be around for educational purposes.
1.7.4.3.1. Con: Although complete replication is [virtually impossible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%27s_room), some methods \(like recreation and simulation \(e.g. [virtually](https://www.kialo.com/can-e-vacations-ie-virtual-travel-replace-real-ones-31208)\)\) are close and realistic enough to not really require consuming animal products anymore to experience them.
1.7.4.4. Pro: Potentially erasing history is actually incompatible with vegan's culture as well, as we might repeat the past if we don't learn from it.
1.7.5. Con: Various small and ancient cultures are getting lost/pushed out anyway to [generationalism](https://springgrovemnheritagecenter.org/a-heritage-of-questioning/foreward/) \(or lack thereof\), [globalization](https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2011/10/12895/how-has-globalization-caused-a-loss-of-culture/), [modernization, and its appeal](https://www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp/ijcc/wp/cimac/hirai.html). So even if veganism is incompatible with these cultural beliefs and practices, that would not be an issue in the future, as they won't be around for veganism to conflict with or disrupt them.
1.7.5.1. Con: Cultures can preserve their practices by making substitutions with vegan ones without compromising its practices through [assimilation](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/cochise-sociology-os/chapter/assimilation/), as it's [most successful](https://www.immigrationresearch.org/report/other/conundrum-immigrant-assimilation-versus-cultural-preservation).
1.7.5.2. Con: Veganism is a part of modernization, so it can exacerbate the removal of cultures. That makes it still incompatible with them, even if it doesn't clash with their beliefs and practices directly and in reality.
1.7.5.2.1. Con: Even if cultural practices are lost from veganism, the cultures can be documented and preserved to practice the vegan parts when desired. This process allows cultures to progress freely in the positive direction without losing the cultures themselves \(outside of the practice of them\).
1.7.5.2.1.1. Pro: There will come a time when the only way to learn about a culture is through documentation \(like in textbooks and museums, just like how many ancient civilizations are known these days\) rather than the people in it. Thus, we should focus on these forms of documenting while cultures are still around instead of their inevitable threats.
1.7.5.3. Pro: Veganism solves so many worldly issues \(like animal and environmental rights\), that people will be able to not worry about those anymore and instead focus on other ones, such as cultural loss \(happening due to and outside of veganism\). So vegans could actually be an ally in protecting cultures to restore, preserve, and resurrect them instead of a foe to them.
1.7.6. Con: There are no prohibitions for eating meat in the [10 commandments](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ten-Commandments). Therefore, it is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity or Judaism.
1.7.7. Con: Just because something is a cultural practice or deeply believed doesn't make it right or ethical. Ethics should always be more important than culture, tradition, or beliefs.
1.7.7.1. Con: Ethics are shaped by cultures and often vary between different cultures.
1.7.7.1.1. Pro: Christianity teaches that God allowed mankind to eat animals, and there are even Biblical verses, when God suggests to eat animals. Therefore, for a confessional Christian, eating animals is completely ethical.
1.7.7.1.1.1. Pro: In [Genesis 9:1-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209&version=NIV) God permits eating meat.
1.7.7.1.1.2. Pro: [Acts 10:9-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010&version=NIV) permits eating meat.
1.7.7.1.1.3. Pro: [1 Corinthians 10:23-33](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010&version=NIV) implies that eating meat is permissible.
1.7.7.1.1.4. Pro: In [Luke 24:42-43](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024&version=NIV) Jesus, who is sinless, eats a fish. Thus, eating meat is not sinful.
1.7.7.1.1.5. Pro: The detailed dietary guidelines in [Leviticus 11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011&version=NIV) regarding what meats are permissible to eat and which are not would make little sense if God could have just said "don't eat meat!"
1.7.7.1.2. Con: If ethics is shaped by culture we cannot condemn acts that are empirically unnecessary and that inflict pain, such as female genital mutilation. Since we wish to condemn acts of culture like this, ethics cannot be relative to culture.
1.7.8. Con: [Appeal to tradition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) is a logical fallacy.
1.7.8.1. Pro: Appeal to tradition does not make logical sense, and the people of the past knew it. That is why slavery is not practiced in the West. If they didn't go towards freedom, because it was incompatible with the slave culture, then slavery, a highly unethical practice, might still exist today.
1.7.8.2. Con: This is not an appeal to tradition, because it simply states the fact, without asserting that this should be the standard.
1.7.8.2.1. Con: Facts are ethically neutral. By categorising a statement in opposition to veganism, it bears a moral coding, whether intended or not, which means it is a fallacy.
1.7.8.3. Pro: Tradition is superseded by logic and scientific discovery.
1.7.9. Pro: Veganism is [more associated with liberals than conservatives or moderates](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/without-prejudice/201809/meat-eating-and-political-ideology). This may equate to, if non-liberals go vegan, associating with liberals more. This would take them away from their identity, beliefs, and ultimately participation in affiliated groups.
1.7.9.1. Con: If everyone went vegan, since political ideologies are separated by more than one category, they would still exist, just with fewer lines of separation.
1.7.9.2. Con: If veganism takes away political distinctions, then other categories could be created to create polarizing views to replace the vegan category that they lost.
1.7.9.3. Pro: The central tenets of conservatism [include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism). Those who share any of these views will rarely be inclined to believe that animals have rights over humans, including the right not to be used as a commodity.
1.7.9.3.1. Con: Not many conservatives may be vegan \(around [2%](https://www.peacefuldumpling.com/vegan-demographics-stereotype)\), but it's irrelevant to what animal protectors want. Although highly liberal, slightly more vegans are either moderate and conservative \([15%](https://www.peacefuldumpling.com/vegan-demographics-stereotype)\). This shows that conservative values have a place in a vegan world.
1.7.9.3.1.1. Pro: Vegan conservatives [exist](https://futurefemaleleader.com/im-conservative-vegan-yes-read-right/), so having both is feasible.
1.7.9.3.1.1.1. Pro: The government's for the people, so the tenets do not apply animals, only humans. So it's mishandling to create laws over the wrong being.
1.7.9.3.1.1.2. Pro: In the US, since the constitution does not refer to diet nor animals, they don't have protections or laws one has to abide by. Conservative don't need to apply their viewpoints to them there if they choose not to.
1.7.9.3.1.1.3. Pro: The tenets of each are not mutually exclusive \(moral and philosophical vs political, social, and economic\). So even if they conflict, it's as much as the how much as they benefit each other.
1.7.9.3.1.2. Pro: When people are for animals, conservative values \(like [personal responsibility and national defense](https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/)\) help them and [vice versa](https://theresurgent.com/2019/02/13/the-conservative-case-for-supporting-vegansim/). It's just the opposite in an omnivore world.
1.7.9.3.1.2.1. Pro: The values of tradition, hierarchy, etc. could be created to protect animals if geared in that way: like creating a tradition to help animals and a hierarchy of humans being the protectors of them.
1.7.9.3.1.2.2. Pro: Conservative values actually may provide the strongest help to veganism if applied: Theodore Roosevelt was a [conservative Republican](https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/theodore-roosevelt#section_2), became possibly the greatest protector for animals in the US ever \(from [saving the bison](https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/nature/bison-buffalo.htm) to forest reserves\).
1.7.9.3.2. Con: Saying the intersection rarely happens is superficial: it took place as [progressivism](https://www.ushistory.org/us/42.asp) in the 20th century.
1.7.9.3.3. Pro: Eating animal products has been traditional around the world, which is especially true for conservatives.
1.7.9.3.3.1. Pro: US conservatives are [less likely](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/without-prejudice/201809/meat-eating-and-political-ideology) to go vegan or vegetarian than the US population as a whole.
1.7.9.3.3.2. Pro: Liberal nations such as Iceland \([1](https://www.livekindly.co/iceland-worlds-most-vegan-friendly-country/)\) or Sweden \([1](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/one-in-ten-swedes-is-vegetarian-or-vegan-according-to-study-9212176.html)\) are far more likely to be interested in veganism.
1.7.9.3.4. Pro: Non-human animals are [considered to be property in the law](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn1c3sX4qnw), which reflects authority, order and/or tradition for conservatives.
1.7.9.3.5. Pro: Conservatism [is associated with](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331940340_Political_Conservatism_and_the_Exploitation_of_Non-Human_Animals_An_Application_of_System_Justification_Theory) less support for animal welfare and more support for speciesism.
1.7.9.3.6. Pro: Conservatives tend to be resistant to societal changes.
1.7.10. Pro: Even if the world went vegan, many people might retain their meat-eating cultural beliefs and memories. For these people, a vegan lifestyle may be impossible to sustain long term.
1.7.11. Pro: Veganism conflicts with religious beliefs and practices that people already have.
1.7.11.1. Pro: [Animal sacrifice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice) is a component of some current religious practice.
1.7.11.2. Con: The nature of the current [meat industry](https://thetechnoskeptic.com/problems-industrial-meat/) is incompatible with cultural beliefs and traditions.
1.7.11.2.1. Pro: The breeding practices, living conditions, and violence used in maximising output in the meat industry contradict the teachings of [Christianity](https://www.thedodo.com/factory-farms-reprehensible-a--490703166.html).
1.7.11.2.2. Pro: The teachings of Islam stress the importance of [kindness and compassion](https://theveganreview.com/veganism-in-islam-can-you-be-vegan-and-muslim/) for animals.
1.7.11.2.3. Pro: There are a number of passages in the [Old Testament](https://www.jvs.org.uk/2020/05/04/judaism-veganism-the-intersection-of-two-paths/) that suggest actively countering animal suffering, and that advocate eating plant-based food.
1.7.11.2.4. Pro: Hinduism advocates for [non-violence](https://vegnews.com/2017/9/5-reasons-hindu-vegetarians-should-go-vegan), which is directly contradicted in the harms committed by the meat industry.
1.7.11.2.5. Con: The meat industry being incompatible with cultural, or religious, values is not an argument to justify veganism. Instead it is a justification for making the meat industry more religion-friendly.
1.7.11.2.5.1. Con: There is no feasible way to ethically put down billions of animals per year. The only realistic solution is to bring down meat demand.
1.7.11.2.5.1.1. Con: [Halal meat](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27324224) - seen by Muslims as the only ethical way to kill an animal - is widely practised throughout the world. Therefore, there is a feasible way to put down animals ethically according to Islam.
1.7.11.2.5.1.1.1. Pro: In the UK, the supply of halal meat [outstrips demand](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/08/why-does-supply-halal-meat-outstrip-demand), indicating it is highly feasible on a mass scale.
1.7.11.2.5.1.1.2. Con: Halal is not a more ethical way to slaughter animals as it still needlessly takes the life of an animal with methods inflicting pain and suffering.
1.7.11.2.6. Con: There are plenty of options for people of various faiths. Halal groceries, hunting, back yard farming are all reasonable options.
1.7.11.3. Pro: In Christianity and Judaism, [eating a lamb at Easter/Pesach](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12&version=NIV) is a several thousands years old tradition which symbolises the saving power of God.
1.7.11.3.1. Pro: There are [2.3 billion Christians](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next#:~:text=According%20to%202015%20figures%2C%20Christians,world%20population%20of%207.3%20billion.) and 14 million Jews in the world.
1.7.11.3.2. Pro: A [great deal of effort](https://www.farm2fork.co.uk/why-do-we-traditionally-eat-lamb-at-easter/#:~:text=For%20Christians%2C%20the%20lamb%20is,Abraham%20to%20sacrifice%20his%20son.) is put into ensuring that lamb will be available for Easter. This underscores the importance of this ritual.
1.7.11.3.3. Con: Substitutions can be made so people can still carry out their traditions. Faux lamb could be used instead of lamb to keep the traditions going.
1.7.11.3.3.1. Pro: Many religions already make substitutions in their practices \([p. 3](https://books.google.com/books?id=XKrjyQTlJWsC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=substitutions+of+religious+rituals&source=bl&ots=VvirFGHL28&sig=VHEWPWQ6sYqBQimolOgCmyfwyVs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigoIeA9v_dAhUnzoMKHcs3AQwQ6AEwA3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)\), which the religion allows for. With such flexibility, vegan substitutions should be possible and accepted, because of such commonplace that already takes place. If nobody can notice the difference in the substitution, then there is no reason not to use it.
1.7.11.3.4. Con: Veganism is a worthwhile endeavour that justifies the loss of certain aspects of religious traditions.
1.7.11.3.4.1. Pro: By then, people most likely will not practice religion anyway, as religious participation is declining [worldwide](http://By then, people most likely will not practice religion anyway, as religious participation is declining worldwide.). So an academic setting in the future will be best after all to preserve the past without losing it, but also having a 'happy medium' where people do not participate in it if they do not want to.
1.7.12. Pro: Veganism is a western tradition and as such it would be neo-imperialist to impose it on non-western cultures.
1.7.12.1. Con: It is not imperialist to urge other countries to grant basic rights to its inhabitants. This holds true for both humans' rights and animals' rights. Vegans do not suggest that western culture should impose veganism by force the way that imperialism does. Therefore, the use of the words "neo-imperialist" and "impose" is incorrect and misleading.
1.7.12.2. Con: Many non-Western cultures are vegan.
1.7.12.2.1. Pro: Many non-Western cultures, such as the Okinawans and Hunza, eat plant-based diet.
1.7.12.2.2. Pro: Veganism is not strictly a western dominant interpretation. For example, followers of [Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism), [Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Hinduism), and [Jainism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism) advocate vegetarianism in their culture, believing that humans should not inflict pain on animals.
1.7.12.2.3. Con: -> See 1.7.2.4.
1.7.12.2.4. Pro: Veganism need not be seen as a Western cultural trait. Similar ideas can be found in non-Western countries, notably [India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#India).
1.7.12.2.4.1. Pro: Per capita meat consumption in USA is [5 times](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/us-eats-5-times-more-than-india-per-capita/articleshow/3008449.cms#:~:text=Beef%20consumption%2C%20for%20example%2C%20is,and%205.9%20kg%20in%20China.&text=In%20the%20US%2C%2045.4%20kg,just%201.9%20kg%20in%20India.) that in India.
1.8. Pro: A vegan society has environmental advantages.
1.8.1. Con: Livestock can yield environmental benefits. As vegans do not keep livestock, a vegan society would discontinue these benefits.
1.8.1.1. Con: If it is sufficiently important, you could still have animal flocks for that purpose, without harming them or exploiting them.
1.8.1.2. Pro: Areas not well suited for agriculture \(e.g. because terrain is abrupt\) or other uses but with vegetation can be used for grazing, reducing the need for other food sources.
1.8.1.3. Pro: Research suggests that certain ways of [herding livestock](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI) can help deserts become greener and partially reverse climate change.
1.8.1.4. Pro: There will be fewer [backyard chickens](https://www.bookbrowse.com/mag/btb/index.cfm/book_number/3173/why-did-the-chicken-cross-the-world) in a vegan society, meaning fewer sustainable lawns.
1.8.1.4.1. Con: The backyard chicken movement is too riddled with issues to adopt, from [legislative restrictions to public health concerns](http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5900), and scaling \(wouldn't be possible for those who do not have backyards, as with those who live in apartments\). Growing plants wouldn't have such issues.
1.8.1.4.1.1. Con: Growing crops in yards have concerns of their own, namely [aesthetic ones](https://sustainableamerica.org/blog/believe-it-or-not-it-may-be-illegal-to-grow-your-own-food/) - which getting away from aesthetics can cause issues for others \(like a lack of uniformity or the neighbor's home value going down, causing them to lose money\).
1.8.1.4.1.1.1. Con: The difference between laws for backyard chickens and plants is that there's more of benefit in relaxing the laws for plants \(it's [more sustainable for health and the environment](https://sustainableamerica.org/blog/believe-it-or-not-it-may-be-illegal-to-grow-your-own-food/)\) than for chickens \(which would lead to the opposite\).
1.8.1.4.2. Con: Lawns are a resource waste \(being decoration and not for food\) and in general should be removed. It's not a vegan-specific issue, so it doesn't really relate to whether or not all humans should go vegan.
1.8.1.4.2.1. Pro: Backyard chickens perpetuate the idea of continuing something bad for the environment: having a lawn. This concept shows that it's not about environmentalism in the end, but more lifestyle.
1.8.1.4.2.1.1. Pro: If people have lawns with backyard chickens, they'll justify the existence of lawns in general. Then some people will continue to waste resources with theirs. So it's better to remove them entirely instead of trying to find a way to justify animal products through an already environmentally damaging lifestyle. "Two wrongs don't make a right."
1.8.1.4.3. Con: Vegan replacements for lawns would be more eco-friendly than keeping an environmental concern around: lawns, while also adding another one onto it: chickens \(i.e. animal agriculture\).
1.8.1.4.3.1. Pro: Foraging weeds \(like [Eat the Weeds](http://www.eattheweeds.com/)\) avoids the additional upkeep of chickens to lawns, which requires resources to maintain both.
1.8.1.4.3.1.1. Pro: Foraging is also easier and more feasible, as when maintenance and resource use is avoided, there's less work to be done too.
1.8.1.4.3.1.1.1. Con: Foraging can be very hit-or-miss depending on the season, other environmental factors, and luck.
1.8.1.4.3.2. Pro: Front yard gardens \(like [Food is Free](https://foodisfreeproject.org/)\) are better for the environment, as it encourages food sharing to decrease food miles for the whole neighborhood. Chickens in a backyard would really only decrease food miles for the family growing them.
1.8.1.4.3.2.1. Con: People with backyard chickens could share their eggs with the neighborhood.
1.8.1.4.3.3. Pro: Vegans could just grow and consume edible grass, like nutritious [wheatgrass](https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/custom/900675/2), thus bypassing the animal middleman.
1.8.1.4.3.3.1. Con: Some people just want to have it both ways - growing something for decoration and to be able to have food from it. So lawns and chickens gives people a chance to do better for the environment without having to change their lifestyle drastically.
1.8.1.4.4. Pro: Backyard chickens can [provide](http://www.grangecoop.com/pros-cons-raising-backyard-chickens/) both direct nutrition \(e.g. eggs and meat\) as well as indirect nutrition \(in the form of organic fertiliser\).
1.8.2. Pro: -> See 1.6.11.1.2.
1.8.3. Pro: A vegan society would be the most effective at combating climate change.
1.8.3.1. Con: As industries transition to more sustainable fuel sources over the next century, the mitigation of global emissions may be sufficiently accomplished by means other than a total elimination of the meat industry.
1.8.3.1.1. Pro: Modelling indicates that by 2100 almost all fossil fuel power generation will be [phased out](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf)(In the majority of low-stabilization scenarios, the share of low-carbon electricity supply \(comprising RE, nuclear and CCS\) increases from the current share of approximately 30 % to more than 80 % by 2050, and fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased out almost entirely by 2100. \(p.516\)).
1.8.3.1.2. Con: The problem of climate change is urgent, and measures to combat it must reflect this. A dual approach will be more effective than changing one single variable, and is therefore preferable.
1.8.3.2. Con: A vegan society would be more dependent on imported foods, thus making the emissions made by the world's fleet of cargo ships even worse.
1.8.3.2.1. Con: The emissions that would come from increased transport would still [pale](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions) in comparison to emissions saved from the animal agriculture sector.
1.8.3.2.1.1. Con: -> See 1.2.6.5.2.
1.8.3.2.1.2. Con: Some of the numbers do not include [all of the steps](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange) in the animal agriculture process, making the numbers inaccurate.
1.8.3.2.2. Con: -> See 1.6.11.1.2.7.
1.8.3.2.3. Pro: In the short-term, meat-heavy countries would rely on imports until the country can figure out how to grow its own produce.
1.8.3.2.4. Pro: Some countries that cannot grow crops easily \(such as political conflict regions that rely on mobile food like livestock\) will need imported food to survive.
1.8.3.3. Pro: Less fields to grow crops results in [more](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching) [area](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/deforestation.php) with forests, which [reduces carbon emissions](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1433831915000463).
1.8.3.3.1. Con: -> See 1.6.11.1.2.9.4.1.
1.8.3.3.2. Con: Livestock feed, including grass for pasture based livestock, are carbon sinks. Removing those crops \(especially in areas that have no plants normally, like deserts\) would be worse for the planet.
1.8.3.4. Pro: One of these transitions towards reducing climate change is moving away from oil \(sourced from [plant and animal remains](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/), which is not really vegan\) and towards renewable energy like [solar](http://solargaines.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/How-Solar-Works-v2.png) and [wind](https://images.ecosia.org/XugO8KszOUN4TXxQML90yYkvRrM=/0x390/smart/https%3A%2F%2Fclaesjohnsonmathscience.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Fwindturbine1.jpg) \(their energy comes from vegan sources\).
1.8.3.4.1. Con: This undermines the imperative that all humans should be vegan because renewable energy can easily be adopted by both vegan and non-vegan societal systems.
1.8.3.5. Con: The high demand for kelp and seaweed based products is putting a lot of our oceans under threat from people that want to [farm these using unsustainable and seriously damaging farming methods such as dredging](https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2018/09/16/msps-urged-to-ban-mechanical-dredging-for-kelp/?guccounter=1). Research while in its early days is showing the positive effect that kelp beds and other fragile ocean based environments have on the [absorption of greenhouse gases](https://oceana.org/blog/seaweed-could-be-scrubbing-way-more-carbon-atmosphere-we-expected).
1.8.3.5.1. Con: While taking native kelp is a detrimental practice, kelp farming that does is a [minimally-invasive, sustainable methods, replaces](https://akua.co/pages/about) the actual unsustainable industry that put the oceans under threat: [fishing](https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/5MKZvLu1Fa8vgxqjf58ZivfR4_J8peVS/seaweed-farming-and-its-surprising-benefits/). It helps in reversing climate change rather than be a cause for it.
1.8.3.6. Con: Building soil back in grasslands with grazing animals is an essential pillar to combating climate change and restoring soil by [placing the carbon](https://youtu.be/wgmssrVInP0) where it belongs.
1.8.3.6.1. Con: Carbon storage offsets only [20%-60%](https://theconversation.com/why-eating-grass-fed-beef-isnt-going-to-help-fight-climate-change-84237) of the total emissions from grazing cattle, 4%-11% of total livestock emissions, and 0.6%-1.6% of total annual greenhouse gas emissions.
1.8.3.6.2. Con: Those carbon sinks can reach their limit while the emissions will continue. \([1](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02673-x),[2](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.12561)\)
1.8.3.7. Con: The [fertilizer](https://industrialprogress.com/fossil-fuels-are-the-food-of-food/) used in agriculture is made from fossil fuels. Agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels.
1.8.3.7.1. Pro: Synthetic fertilizers account for around [10%](https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/07/5-questions-about-agricultural-emissions-answered) of agricultural production emissions.
1.8.3.8. Pro: A vegan diet [would](https://www.culinaryschools.org/yum/vegetables/) create less greenhouse gas emissions, require less water, and use less land for its food production.
1.8.3.8.1. Pro: A vegan diet [could reduce](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/03/16/1523119113.full) food-related greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050 according to [Oxford University](http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-03-22-veggie-based-diets-could-save-8-million-lives-2050-and-cut-global-warming).
1.8.3.8.1.1. Con: The cited reference shows 30 to 70% reduction only in food production impacts \(estimated at 25%\) of GHG, so the lower end is 7.5% and upper end 17.5% change, most of which, according to the work, is in the developing countries, not high tech developed ones.
1.8.3.8.2. Pro: Excrement runoff from pig farms significantly [pollutes waterways](http://www.earthtimes.org/business/environmental-impact-disposal-waste-large-scale-pig-production/433/).
1.8.3.8.3. Con: One of the biggest water burdens in California is from high water demand crops such as [almonds](https://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html?via=gdpr-consent).
1.8.3.8.3.1. Con: This could be addressed via regulation.
1.8.3.8.3.2. Con: This a local problem that can be addressed by importing.
1.8.3.8.3.2.1. Pro: Traditional almond production in Southern Europe uses little irrigation. \([1](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=3dN5Yw_y8UEC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=almond+italy+irrigation&source=bl&ots=yP9FxpR5u3&sig=ACfU3U0mo_HEqh3o_3AZxIZbdTBuMHf9-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwreKKspXqAhUpyaYKHa8ICM4Q6AEwDnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=irrigated&f=false)\)
1.8.3.8.3.2.2. Con: If air-freighted, the water saved by importing products grown more easily elsewhere may be offset by their [increased carbon footprint](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local).
1.8.3.8.3.2.2.1. Con: In practice, only a [tiny fraction](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local) of foods are imported by air; the vast majority are shipped instead.
1.8.3.8.4. Pro: Methane from grazing and dairy cows, along with other processing, constitutes [4%](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/41348/icode/) of the world's total green house gas emissions.
1.8.3.8.4.1. Con: Converting [methane](https://www.greenfieldadvisors.com/2016/11/new-technology-to-convert-methane-from-cows-into-energy/) from cows into [biogas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas) could reduce these emissions.
1.8.3.8.5. Pro: The meat industry [contributes](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/eat-less-meat-vegetarianism-dangerous-global-warming) to global warming.
1.8.3.8.5.1. Pro: -> See 1.6.11.1.2.6.1.
1.8.3.8.5.2. Pro: Over [18%](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment) of greenhouse gases are due to animal agriculture.
1.8.3.8.5.2.1. Con: -> See 1.4.4.1.1.2.
1.8.3.8.5.2.2. Pro: A vegan's diet's [carbon footprint](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet) is estimated to be less than half that of a high meat diet.
1.8.3.8.5.2.3. Pro: The meat industry produces more pollution than all [transportation and power plants combined](http://web.archive.org/web/20190219011005/http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf), accounting for 51% of annual greenhouse gas \(GHG\) emissions \(pg. 11\).
1.8.3.8.5.2.3.1. Con: The cited source spends a great deal of time estimating supposedly overlooked or misallocated sources of CO2 pollution connected to the meat industry, but fails to do the same for every industry that produces CO2 emissions. Thus, its estimate of the meat industry's share of global emissions is significantly inflated.
1.8.3.8.5.2.3.2. Con: The cited source does not sufficiently reference concrete empirical evidence to support its claims, but rather loosely sourced and unproven estimates.
1.8.3.8.5.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.5.2.
1.8.3.8.5.4. Pro: -> See 1.6.1.3.5.2.2.
1.8.3.8.6. Con: Making farming practices holistic will [reduce emissions leading to sustainability](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI).
1.8.3.8.7. Pro: The plants grown for food [absorb CO2](https://sciencing.com/carbon-dioxide-absorbed-during-photosynthesis-3196.html), so they help to decrease this and [other greenhouse gases](https://www.answers.com/Q/Plants_absorb_the_greenhouse_gas_carbon_dioxide_during_the_process) in the air.
1.8.3.8.7.1. Con: This is true, but the net absorption of CO2 is so low, that it doesn't contribute much to greenhouse gas reduction, and [even less so with climate change](http://eco-weekly.com/featured/as-climate-warms-plants-will-absorb-less-co%E2%82%82-study-finds/).
1.8.3.8.7.1.1. Pro: Over [90%](https://theconversation.com/plants-absorb-more-co2-than-we-thought-but-32945) of the CO2 a plant absorbs returns to the atmosphere at the end of its life, while around 50% is released immediately through respiration following photosynthesis. The amount of absorbed CO2 retained by a plant, therefore, is insignificant in the fight against climate change.
1.8.3.8.7.1.2. Con: Algae acts as a [carbon sink](https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lowering-carbon-with-algae-40725) when plants start to fail \(due to climate change\). Chlorella, which is [edible](https://blog.radiantlifecatalog.com/bid/59541/Chlorella-vs-Alga-Spirulina-which-algae-is-best), can survive in extreme CO2 conditions - from under [10-100%](http://www.oilgae.com/ref/downloads/Analysis_of_CO2_Capture_Using_Algae.pdf).
1.8.3.8.7.1.2.1. Con: Current production methods are [not viable](https://phys.org/news/2013-03-algae-capture-co2.html) for mass production at this time.
1.8.3.8.7.1.2.2. Pro: Additionally, they can be [turned into fuel](http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/3786/examining-co2-sources-for-algae/), thus reducing the source of CO2 emissions too.
1.8.3.8.7.1.2.3. Pro: Algae is great for [absorbing CO2 from power plants](http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/3786/examining-co2-sources-for-algae/), as they can handle it in pure form, making them a solution to reducing greenhouse gases.
1.8.3.8.7.1.2.4. Pro: Marine algae already accounts for [half of the world's CO2 absorption](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268331728_Marine_Algae_as_Carbon_Sinks_and_Allies_to_Combat_Global_Warming), so it's proven to be successful.
1.8.3.8.7.2. Con: Animals [breathe out CO2, which contributes to climate change](http://hannahritchie.com/rationalising-respiration-in-livestock-emissions/) \(by converting carbon stored in plants into atmospheric CO2\), whereas plants absorb it. So even if we removed all livestock, consuming wild animals would be better in reducing CO2 emissions than wild plants at that point.
1.8.3.8.7.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.8.5.2.3.
1.8.3.8.8. Con: The [cultivation of rice](https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/07/5-questions-about-agricultural-emissions-answered) - a vegan product - already accounts for 10% of all agricultural production emissions. This would likely increase if everyone became vegan.
1.8.4. Pro: A vegan society would create the least pollution, which damages the environment.
1.8.4.1. Pro: Livestock is the most significant contributor to [nitrogen and phosphorus pollution](https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture) of streams, rivers and coastal waters worldwide.
1.8.4.1.1. Pro: This is really harmful to the underwater ecosystems, as [toxic algae blooms](https://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/toxic-algae-blooms-spreading/) grow \(and are getting worse\) from the runoff from farms that grow animals for meat.
1.8.4.1.2. Pro: [Cover crops](https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture) are a solution to the problem, showing that vegan food production is the way to go to resolve the nitrogen/phosphorus pollution in waterways.
1.8.4.1.3. Con: Due to intensive farming required to produce agricultural produce for human consumption - while there are other alternatives silage is the cheapest way of fertilising the land and if used properly can reduce the leaching effect. Previously we had more trees, bushes and plants in buffer or runoff areas which absorbed a lot of the excess and acted as filters. Yet mans need for housing and infrastructures has meant that these have been greatly reduced.
1.8.4.2. Con: Leather is [biodegradable](http://www.truthaboutfur.com/blog/5-reasons-must-wear-leather-fur/), which is better for the environment \(less trash\) than plastic clothing.
1.8.4.3. Pro: One study revealed that the vegan diet has the lowest total environmental impact compared to Italian, omnivore, and vegetarian diets, especially when organically grown \([p. 5](https://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/baroni07.pdf)\).
1.8.4.3.1. Con: -> See 1.2.3.2.6.1.
1.8.4.4. Pro: The streams rivers lakes and waterways would be rejuvenated from removing faeces sources as at the moment many waterways in America and possibly other countries are polluted with pig, cow and other animal faeces making water unsafe to use and consume by humans.
1.8.4.5. Pro: Meat production [poisons the water](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment). Nearly 40% of pesticides \(US\) and nearly two thirds of ammonia \(a major contributor to acid rain\) are used or produced in animal farming.
1.8.4.6. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.8.5.2.3.
1.8.4.7. Con: A vegan society would increase the use of pesticides. In order to meet the demand \(and make money\), farmers and the firms behind them will be forced to use more and more pesticides and exceed the critical threshold we already reached in the use of chemicals in agricultural exploitation.
1.8.4.7.1. Con: A vegan world would not use more pesticides because we already produce enough to feed the whole planet. But all this is used to feed animals, that make less food than what they eat \(and drink\). As you can see, a 60kg human has eaten way more than 60kg of food in his whole life.
1.8.5. Pro: A vegan society would cause the least harm to wildlife.
1.8.5.1. Con: [Monocrop](https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/environmental/monoculture-gardening.htm) agriculture to service vegan demand is an environmental catastrophe.
1.8.5.1.1. Pro: Modern urban farming using techniques such as [hydroponics](http://www.hortidaily.com/article/1177/900-crops-of-lettuce-per-square-meter,-and-only-4-laborers-per-hectare), aquaponics, and microfarming does not directly or indirectly harm animals, and yields far greater crop yields than traditional farming techniques.
1.8.5.1.1.1. Con: These more modern techniques [frequently require much more energy than their traditional alternatives](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/). This indirectly harms animals and humans.
1.8.5.1.1.2. Pro: These novel farming methods provide more land for wildlife to roam, live, survive, and thrive by using less land to grow food on.
1.8.5.1.1.3. Pro: These methods tend to be in vertical gardens, which greatly reduce the conflicts between wildlife and farmers \(which often lead to predators, such as wolves, being shot\).
1.8.5.1.2. Pro: Vegan foods affect the wildlife of insects, such as [bumblebees and bees](https://www.kialo.com/should-all-bee-products-be-banned-1233/1233.0=1233.1+1233.387).
1.8.5.1.3. Pro: Pests and diseases could be introduced and spread over non-native parts of the world due to globalization of the food system, where it could cause damage there. The extent of damage goes past lost crops towards infecting wild lands \(impacting [biodiversity](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1118322/icode/) there\). One example of this is [chestnut blight from Asia wiping out American chestnut trees](https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2016/05/12/invasive-pests-no-1-threat-wnc-forests/84189454/).
1.8.5.1.4. Con: Following a vegan, plant-based diet [causes the least harm to animals](https://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/comparing-animal-deaths-production-plant-animal-foods/).
1.8.5.1.4.1. Con: Many species of wild animals have been almost [hunted to extinction by farmers](https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/18-animals-that-went-extinct-in-the-last-century/)(European colonists were afraid of the Tasmanian tiger and thought they might prey on their sheep, so they hunted and killed them to reduce their numbers.) that felt threatened by their presence or the animals eating their crops, causing significant disruptions in natural habitats.
1.8.5.1.4.2. Pro: Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many [more plants](http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too) are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food. A plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.
1.8.5.1.5. Con: The idea of perfect veganism is a non-vegan one. The [actual ethics](http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too) of veganism are focused on causing the least possible harm to the fewest number of others.
1.8.5.1.5.1. Con: This is a "[No True Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)" fallacy, creating a washed-out definition of Veganism to avoid the contradictions that it faces off, until it eventually might just as well become "Conscientious Omnivore Diet", defeating the purpose of Veganism itself.
1.8.5.1.6. Con: The [accidental deaths](http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too) from growing and harvesting plants are ethically different to the intentional deaths caused by slaughtering animals for food.
1.8.5.1.6.1. Con: Unfortunately, the outcome is the same for those animals.
1.8.5.2. Con: The risk of [death of wildlife](https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/viewhtml.php?id=281) increases during the transport of food, especially when the vegan food travels for thousands of miles by land. Local meat would cause less harm to wildlife during its transport.
1.8.5.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.2.2.1.3.4.4.
1.8.5.2.2. Con: Feed needs to be transported to livestock to eat before their meat is shuttled to the consumer. Vegan food cuts out the middleman \(livestock\) by shuttling the crops directly to the consumer.
1.8.5.3. Pro: The [fishing industry is especially deleterious to the ocean's biota](http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6400/readings/Dayton_et_al._1995.pdf).
1.8.5.3.1. Pro: According to the article, some marine species cannot reproduce fast enough to counter deaths associated with fishing, leading to a decline in their population \([p. 207](http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6400/readings/Dayton_et_al._1995.pdf)\).
1.8.5.3.2. Pro: Modern shrimp trawling operations generate more oceanic waste due to high levels of discards/bycatch in its processes \([p. 206](http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6400/readings/Dayton_et_al._1995.pdf)\).
1.8.5.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.4.3.1.
1.8.5.5. Pro: In addition to being not harmful, vegan foods can be very symbiotic with and beneficial to wildlife.
1.8.5.5.1. Con: Universal veganism will deprive animals of certain food sources due to the increase in demand for these foods when all humans embrace veganism.
1.8.5.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.6.1.4.3.2.
1.8.5.5.3. Pro: Allowing vegan foods to grow allows wildlife to grow it. When the plants flower, it helps native insects have food to support their populations.
1.8.5.5.4. Con: Beekeeping is [beneficial to the environment](http://science.time.com/2013/09/12/honeybees-are-still-hurting-but-backyard-and-rooftop-beekeepers-can-help/), yet bee products \(like [honey](https://www.livescience.com/37611-what-is-honey-honeybees.html) and [bee pollen](https://carolinahoneybees.com/why-pollen-is -vital-for-honeybee-survival/)\) are not vegan. Bee populations [are declining globally](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/beekeeping/9790465/Why-natural-beekeeping-could-save-our-honey-making-friends.html).
1.8.5.5.4.1. Con: Beekeeping could be inherent to the farming of plants without having to steal the honey and making starve the bees with a glucosic substitute.
1.8.5.5.4.2. Con: The most commonly kept honeybee \(apis mellifera\) [evolved in Europe](http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/42463639/1#sectionRange) and is a [non-native species](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5198217/) in many areas where they are kept as pollinators and honey producers.
1.8.5.5.4.3. Con: Honeybees compete with native bee species for pollen and nectar, thus putting pressure on native populations of bees in places where honeybee hives are kept.
1.8.5.5.4.4. Con: Using honeybees as pollinators [results from](https://www.lexiconoffood.com/video/bees-and-monoculture) \(and reinforces\) large scale monocultural crop plantations which are [harmful to honeybees](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/honey-bees-and-monoculture-nothing-to-dance-about/) and [to the environment](https://theconversation.com/single-crop-farming-is-leaving-wildlife-with-no-room-to-turn-38991).
1.8.5.6. Pro: People would be less likely to and less unknowingly eat illegal "[bushmeat](https://www.fws.gov/international/wildlife-without-borders/global-program/bushmeat.html)".
1.8.5.6.1. Pro: Even though laws and enforcement \(like in the [US](http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/29/smuggled-bushmeat-ebolas-back-door-america-265668.html) and [Europe](https://news.mongabay.com/2017/03/endangered-species-to-declare-europes-understudied-bushmeat-trade/)\) try to keep out this type of meat, it still works its way into the food system there. People might eat it thinking they are eating something approved of \(that would be "ethical"\), but in reality are not.
1.8.5.6.1.1. Con: This used to happen before DNA testing \([pg 22](https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/articles/13SummerQ-FinalWeb.pdf)\), when poachers to remove all identifiable parts, like skin, to hide it until companies bought it or mixed it with beef to confuse the taste.
1.8.5.6.2. Pro: Not only is this bad for the animals, but the diseases that travel with the meat cause [epidemiological](https://qz.com/795294/will-illegal-bushmeat-bring-the-next-global-outbreak/) issues as well. People could get ill with diseases that are rare in their part of the world, which make them more difficult to treat.
1.8.5.7. Pro: Infrastructure could be made more vegan.
1.8.5.7.1. Pro: Efforts made by the [Boring Company](https://www.boringcompany.com/) to make car traffic go underground could reduce injuries to wildlife on Earth's surface.
1.8.5.7.2. Pro: The wildlife could be affected by cars coming from suburban areas to cities or within the cities themselves.
1.8.5.7.3. Pro: As cities start growing their population and people encroach on nature, this issue will become more of a reality than now.
1.8.5.7.4. Pro: Vehicles reportedly hit [1-2 million animals](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/roadkill-endangers-endangered-wildlife/) a year.
1.8.5.7.4.1. Con: Most of these accidents take place outside of cities where animals tend to live. In a study of multiple US states, [more than 95%](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/humanfac/94156.cfm) of all wildlife crashes took place on rural roads.
1.8.5.7.4.2. Pro: Comparing [population](http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10395779/slides/slide_9.jpg) to [roadkill](https://www.vox.com/2015/4/4/8341263/roadkill-maps) on a map, the trend shows that roadkill overlaps with densely populated areas \(a.k.a. cities\)
1.8.5.7.5. Pro: Global warming is bringing [more animals to cities](https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/why-wild-animals-are-moving-cities-and-what-do-about-it), making it more important than ever to protect them there.
1.8.5.7.6. Pro: Removing roads could condense cities to provide more space for wildlife.
1.8.5.7.6.1. Pro: Then wildlife would have less need to go to cities due to more roaming space
1.8.5.7.7. Con: There isn't a lot of wildlife in most cities.
1.8.5.7.7.1. Pro: [Certain species of wildlife is increasing in urban areas](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/20/urban-beasts-how-wild-animals-have-moved-into-cities). Cities create an unbalance of species, leading the food chain to fall apart. That process makes it possible for some species to overgrow and others to falter
1.8.5.8. Pro: Since people eat more varieties of plants on a vegan diet than an omnivorous one, people can learn about, appreciate, and have a desire to protect biodiversity more.
1.8.5.8.1. Pro: Their habits also naturally protect biodiversity, because of the safeguarding of species out of consumer demand.
1.8.5.8.1.1. Con: -> See 1.6.11.1.2.9.4.4.
1.8.5.8.2. Pro: More uncultured land \(from fewer livestock\) means more biodiversity - different species and other plant foods with different nutritional values. Combined, the variety of food and nutritional options increases for the vegan consumer.
1.8.5.9. Con: Hunting for population control is better for the ecosystem and creates more protections for such species and populations than the vegan approach of not harming animals.
1.8.5.9.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.5.6.9.1.
1.8.5.9.2. Pro: Hunting \(which is not vegan\) is often done to preserve nature, or to finance preserving nature.
1.8.5.9.2.1. Con: Hunting is a very ugly sport involving the death of animals in nature and manipulating nature to accommodate hunters and by the act of hunting alone.
1.8.5.9.2.1.1. Con: Hunting is often used to balance an ecosystem where past human interference has damaged it. This is known as [therapeutic hunting](http://www.bu.edu/articles/2017/is-hunting-moral/)(Therapeutic hunting involves intentionally killing wild animals in order to conserve another species or an entire ecosystem. In one example, Project Isabella, conservation groups hired marksmen to eradicate thousands of feral goats from several Galápagos islands between 1997 and 2006. The goats were overgrazing the islands, threatening the survival of endangered Galápagos tortoises and other species.). For example, overhunting of predators has led to population booms of deer in the US. The excessive herbivory is causing long-term damage to their ecosystems.
1.8.5.9.2.1.2. Pro: Many animals have been and continue to be [hunted to extinction](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219306773)(Unsustainable hunting of animals on land, in water and in the air has already skewed the size distribution of biodiversity and is set to continue disrupting entire ecosystems.).
1.8.5.9.2.1.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.8.5.1.4.1.
1.8.5.9.2.1.3. Con: Hunting can be necessary to protect agricultural and environmental interests. For example, [hogs in Texas](https://www.helibacon.com/wild-hog-problem/) are an invasive species that poses a threat to the state's ecological system and to farmers across the state.
1.8.5.9.2.2. Pro: Hunting, if done ethically, will give an animal a far quicker and cleaner death than in nature. Old animals often freeze, starve, or get brutally killed by predators.
1.8.5.9.2.2.1. Pro: Hunting makes an animal's death more peaceful and humane.
1.8.5.9.2.3. Con: Human hunting of animal consumers disrupts [natural ecosystems and food chains](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/food-chain/)(The food chain describes who eats whom in the wild. Every living thing—from one-celled algae to giant blue whales—needs food to survive. Each food chain is a possible pathway that energy and nutrients can follow through the ecosystem.\n\nFor example, grass produces its own food from sunlight. A rabbit eats the grass. A fox eats the rabbit. When the fox dies, bacteria break down its body, returning it to the soil where it provides nutrients for plants like grass.).
1.8.5.9.2.3.1. Con: -> See 1.8.5.9.2.1.1.
1.8.5.9.2.3.2. Con: The fact that an animal that dies in the wild feeds many other animals, plants, etc. doesn't make its death any less painful.
1.8.5.9.2.3.2.1. Con: These animals die after having a long and fulfilling life naturally and when it is time to \(instead of being killed through hunting before the animals' life's maximum length is reached\).
1.8.5.9.2.3.2.2. Pro: Many animals die in the wild under cruel circumstances, such as disease and injury. For instance, they can die very young, and often without even leaving any \(living\) offspring.
1.8.5.9.2.3.3. Pro: Human-style hunting gives humans an unfair advantage that breaks the circle of life. Humans can potentially kill all life, as seen with overfishing. Any other animal on Earth is not capable of this.
1.8.5.9.2.3.4. Con: Hunting is part of nature's circle of life. Animals are more likely to get killed than to die of natural causes. This is based on several causes which are not related to humans \(predators, catastrophes etc...\).
1.8.5.9.2.4. Pro: Hunting is part of the circle of life. Animals hunt and use tools for it. Humans are animals and just made this form of hunting more advanced \(through better tools like guns\).
1.8.5.9.2.4.1. Pro: The better tools makes humans higher in the food chain \(just like how animals who use tools allow them to be higher in the food chain\).
1.8.5.9.2.4.2. Con: -> See 1.8.5.9.2.3.3.
1.8.5.9.3. Con: There could be other ways to control animal populations than killing them.
1.8.5.9.3.1. Pro: Animals may be spayed or neutered to reduce population sizes without killing any animals.
1.8.5.9.3.1.1. Con: Castration of farm animals to control unplanned breeding is routinely performed [surgically and without anaesthesia](https://beef.ces.ncsu.edu/on-farm-castration-techniques-issues-and-whats-coming-part-one/)(Castrating young bulls prevents unwanted pregnancies in under-developed heifers, improves carcass quality \(growth, tenderness, marbling, etc.\), and decreases aggression toward pen mates and human handlers. However, the procedure is undeniably painful and causes significant stress to the animal castrated without the benefit of anesthesia or pain relievers.). Any en-masse neutering for population control would likely be performed in the same way, thus causing the animals significant pain and distress.
1.8.5.9.3.1.1.1. Con: Anaesthesia could be used, even if it isn't.
1.8.5.9.3.1.1.2. Con: Some amount of pain and distress is better than killing the animals.
1.8.5.9.3.2. Pro: Vegans can do [research](http://www.mvcac.org/advocacy-and-legislation/legislative-and-regulatory-issues/) and brainstorm new methods to handle wildlife once everyone goes vegan.
1.8.5.9.3.2.1. Con: A plan needs to be in place before such a dramatic change happens to curtail further ecological damage.
1.8.5.9.3.3. Pro: Public education can help to encourage everyone \(especially once vegan\) can take part in the preventative actions for wildlife control.
1.8.5.9.3.4. Pro: Technology can help to control animal population ethically.
1.8.5.9.3.4.1. Pro: New technologies, like [drones](http://www.mvcac.org/advocacy-and-legislation/legislative-and-regulatory-issues/), can provide surveillance instead of people being in wildlife areas.
1.8.5.9.3.4.1.1. Pro: People would not be possibly create damage while they walk in delicate ecosystems with endangered species.
1.8.5.9.3.4.1.2. Pro: People would be at less risk of being attacked by wildlife. Drones are a safer surveillance option for humans than previous methods of monitoring \(like going in-person to locations\).
1.8.5.9.3.4.2. Pro: [Genetic engineering \(GE\)](https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/06/16/482279851/are-genetically-engineered-mice-the-answer-to-combating-lyme-disease) of mice and deer may help with preventing the spread of Lyme disease instead of [killing them](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/science/ticks-lyme-disease-mice-nantucket.html).
1.8.5.9.3.4.3. Con: This is more costly than allowing citizens to do the animal control, and makes it even more costly when you consider it draws no revenue to conservation efforts unlike hunting does in the U.S.
1.8.5.9.3.5. Con: -> See 1.4.5.6.9.1.5.
1.8.5.9.4. Pro: Hunting is a viable method to control overpopulation and invasive animals. This is more environmentally sustainable and ethical for wildlife than not interfering with their population status.
1.8.5.9.4.1. Pro: Where invasive species have been introduced in the past, nothing but total removal of the species from the environment can ensure the long-term health of the native ecosystem.
1.8.5.9.4.2. Pro: Not interacting with wildlife is not necessarily helpful. It was assumed that the forests of the Santiam Pass, Oregon, would regrow following their destruction from wildfires in 2003. Instead, lack of human intervention has [left the area](https://oregonforests.org/blog/decade-after-bb-fire-devastation-remains-memories-fade) with forests full of dead trees.
1.8.5.9.4.3. Pro: Keeping species' populations in check decreases the risk of them going extinct.
1.8.5.9.4.4. Con: There are methods that vegans can adopt to take care of overpopulation and invasive species without killing animals, as these problems do not always occur due to natural events.
1.8.5.9.4.4.1. Con: Hunting is the best solution to many ecosystem problems, at least until effective solutions can be further explored.
1.8.5.9.4.4.2. Pro: Fish kills, which are caused by [overpopulation](https://www.sancoind.com/news/fish-stocking-and-overpopulation) \(too many fish breathing dissolved oxygen\), are also caused by human activities \(like [driving, eating meat, and growing crops](https://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-chemical-fishkills.html)\). If vegans drive less or do not grow crops near waterways, then they can prevent fish kills without hunting.
1.8.5.9.4.4.3. Pro: Vegans can try to decrease the capability of a population from getting too big by removing environmental factors that allow them to survive \(like food sources or habitats\).
1.8.5.9.4.4.3.1. Con: You cannot remove food sources or habitats without leading to population decline in other species that rely on them.
1.8.5.9.4.4.4. Pro: Vegans can relocate animals through careful monitoring programs to prevent animal populations from expanding too much.
1.8.5.9.4.4.4.1. Con: There aren't enough funds or time to correct all the ecosystems issues before major ecosystem collapse in many places.
1.8.5.9.4.4.5. Pro: Vegans can try to support existing wildlife and make their conditions favorable, so that they can overcome any species with the potential to cause overpopulation or invasions.
1.8.5.9.4.4.5.1. Con: Invasive species are so destructive because they outcompete native species so quickly in the native species' own favored conditions.
1.8.5.9.4.4.5.2. Con: Ecosystem collapse is happening too quickly to stop using known effective methods of population control such as hunting.
1.8.5.9.4.5. Pro: If there are massive [die-offs](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/die-off), then the animals' meat would go to waste.
1.8.5.9.4.5.1. Pro: This also saves resources, because farmers would not have to grow crops to feed people if people just eat the animals from die-offs instead.
1.8.5.9.4.6. Con: Not being vegan is one of the major reasons why the environment has overpopulation and invasive animals to begin with.
1.8.5.9.4.6.1. Con: Humans making a mistake in the past does not mean we cannot correct those mistakes.
1.8.5.9.4.6.2. Pro: Using animals for pest management \(like [ferrets to remove rabbits](https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/animal-pests/ferrets/)\) can make them become invasive.
1.8.5.9.4.6.3. Pro: The desire for hunting caused overpopulation for game animals, like deer \([1](http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=icwdm_usdanwrc), [2](https://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Hunting-has-increased-deer-population-not-643259.php)\), through regulated hunting practices and disrupt native species \(like [songbirds](https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/) with deer increases\)
1.8.5.9.4.6.3.1. Con: Humans can course-correct that overpopulation through hunting.
1.8.5.9.4.6.4. Pro: [Fish stocking](https://www.sancoind.com/news/fish-stocking-and-overpopulation) for fishing can cause overpopulation of species as well \(although they may not affect nearby environments if the water body is artificial\).
1.8.5.9.4.6.5. Pro: -> See 1.3.6.7.6.1.2.
1.8.5.9.4.6.6. Con: The cause of the invasion is often irrelevant once it already occurs, and can only be remedied by dramatic intervention to prevent further ecosystem imbalance.
1.8.5.9.5. Pro: Hunting is more eco-friendly than growing crops, as it uses less resources \(land, water, nutrients...\).
1.8.5.10. Con: If people eat [lake-grown algae](http://www.klamathafa.com/afa.html) for example, they are eating more lives in one bite than how many are lost to make a steak.
1.8.5.11. Pro: -> See 1.3.6.7.6.1.2.
1.8.5.12. Pro: -> See 1.4.6.
1.8.5.13. Con: Consuming plants, in fact, can sometimes lead to man-animal conflict.
1.8.5.13.1. Pro: Vegans are no better than omnivores at competing with other wild animals for the same food source \(birds go after apples and wolves go after sheep\). Thus, vegans are not better off, but create the same harm to wildlife as before from this standpoint.
1.8.5.13.2. Pro: For instance, the clearing of forests for producing crops in some states of India has led to fragmentation of the habitat for animals like [elephants](http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/elephants/asian_elephants/areas/issues/elephant_human_conflict/). As a result, when they enter these areas, the crops get destroyed and people tend to burst crackers or use fire to shoo them away. Fragmentation of habitat means no migration which means lack of food and hence loss of life.
1.8.6. Con: The environmental advantages of a vegan society can be pursued by significantly decreasing meat consumption and sustainably restructuring the meat industry, neither of which require a strict adherence to veganism.
1.8.7. Con: Extending the definition of veganism to environmental considerations is to play down the primary aim of veganism - that is to reduce the suffer of animals. Veganism justifications are not environmental.
1.8.7.1. Con: Although veganism is often focused on animal welfare, it is not the sole aim of veganism. Some people are vegan partly or exclusively because of environmental reasons.
1.8.8. Con: A vegan lifestyle for all humans is not sustainable.
1.8.8.1. Pro: Vegan foods might travel more food miles than meat \([tropical, packaged, fresh, and store bought are the biggest contenders currently](https://cuesa.org/learn/how-far-does-your-food-travel-get-your-plate)\).
1.8.8.1.1. Con: The majority of food-related greenhouse gas emissions occur during production, with final transport to retail only contributing [4% of the total emissions](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702969f). Food choices have far more impact on GHG emissions than distance travelled.
1.8.8.1.1.1. Con: This does not take into account any other polluting factors. Especially in the northern parts of the world, vegetables are not available for long periods of times during the year. A switch off from meat completely would necessitate large scale transportation of food from other areas, which would need new planes, ships, trains etc. Infrastructure would need to be enlarged \(ports, airports etc\). All of this would increase the need for raw building materials, mines are great polluters for example.
1.8.8.1.2. Pro: According to the [article](https://cuesa.org/learn/how-far-does-your-food-travel-get-your-plate), local food vendors try to be more environmentally friendly in their approaches than ones further out.
1.8.8.1.3. Pro: Depending on the location, some vegans may have more food miles for their food than if they lived elsewhere [\(like living in Sweden versus the UK\), which could cause their food to have more miles traveled than a meat eater \(such as one living in Iowa\)](http://ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-database/knowledge/food_mil.pdf).
1.8.8.1.4. Pro: Foods that travel more miles use [more energy \(14% of the food system is transport-related\), and packaging uses even more](https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/viewhtml.php?id=281).
1.8.8.1.5. Pro: Increase in emissions \(like [CO2](http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/04/how-green-is-local-food/)\) can come from transportation of heavily exported foods, like quinoa \([1](https://www.pri.org/stories/2010-06-21/quinoa-bolivias-nutty-tasting-export-success), [2](https://foodfirst.org/bolivian-quinoa-to-eat-or-to-export/)\).
1.8.8.2. Pro: [Food waste](http://veganzinga.com/going-vegan-wont-end-world-hunger/) and a lack of production would still occur, which means that a vegan diet would not sustain the world's population.
1.8.8.2.1. Con: Patently false, here are the [comparative effects of nutritionally balanced reference diets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#/media/File:Land-use-of-different-diets-Poore-Nemecek.png). If everyone ate a vegan diet, we would not only feed the entire population, but reduce the amount of land we use for agriculture with 75% \(an area the combined size of NA plus Brazil, ca 1.9 bn hectares\), using a proven-to-be nutritionally balanced reference-diet.
1.8.8.2.2. Pro: Starving people would still not get access \(due to lack of money\) to food they need.
1.8.8.2.2.1. Con: Food insecurity may not be ameliorated by a switch to global veganism, but there isn't any reason to think it would get worse. Hence, food insecurity cannot be counted against veganism.
1.8.8.2.3. Pro: Fruits and vegetables have the highest percentage of food loss within its category \([pg 5](https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf)\) and overall \([pg 13](https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf)\).
1.8.8.3. Pro: Although a vegan diet can extend the maximum world population, it still has a cap \(at most adding [4 billion](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta) more people to the 10-11 billion people cap of an omnivore diet\).
1.8.8.4. Pro: If most of the population became vegan we would need to use chemical fertilizers instead of raising animals for fertilizer \(manure\). This switch is not a sustainable or eco-friendly option.
1.8.8.4.1. Pro: [Continuous cropping destroys soil structure](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ldr.3378) and causes massive erosion \(think dust-bowl 1930s\) while pasture animals can [improve](https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2011/grazing-of-cattle-pastures-can-improve-soil-quality/) soil [degradation](https://onpasture.com/2018/01/22/grazing-your-cover-crops-can-build-good-soil/).
1.8.8.4.1.1. Con: There are numerous methods for restoring land that can be used, including crop rotation and allowing the land to stay fallow for some time.
1.8.8.4.1.2. Con: [Overgrazing](http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm) could create soil degradation as well as a host of other environmental issues.
1.8.8.4.1.3. Pro: [Reserving lands for grazing instead of crops](http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y8344e/y8344e0j.htm) can prevent soil degradation from crops from happening.
1.8.8.4.1.4. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.6.
1.8.8.4.1.5. Con: If vegan farming utilizes practices that [prevent soil erosion](https://www.wikihow.com/Prevent-Soil-Erosion), soil degradation does not happen. Pasture animals are not needed then.
1.8.8.4.1.5.1. Pro: Reversing the effects of soil degradation could be achieved through vegan means, such as [biochar](https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/making-biochar-improve-soil-zmaz09fmzraw), [compost](https://www.bhg.com/gardening/yard/compost/how-to-compost/), [no-till farming](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/09/no-till-farming-is-on-the-rise-thats-actually-a-big-deal/?noredirect=on), and [crop rotation](https://www.britannica.com/topic/crop-rotation). So pasture animals are not necessary.
1.8.8.4.1.5.1.1. Pro: These and other vegan tactics \("planted trees, dug ditches and built reservoirs", "irrigation, crop diversity and no-till farming" \([1](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/dust-bowl-cause1.htm)\)\) were solutions to the Dust Bowl, practically the largest soil degradation event in history. Animals were likely one of the lowest solutions on the government's list at the time, making it not a great or as suitable of an option for soil degradation as vegan methods.
1.8.8.4.1.5.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.9.3.1.5.2.2.
1.8.8.4.1.5.1.3. Con: Vegan soil practices only maintain or \(in the best-case scenario\) slightly increase the organic carbon content, which is virtually ineffective as a means of soil reparation. However, pasture animals can help to repair the soil, as they consistently increase carbon content until sufficient levels are reached \(evidenced by studies conducted in [New Zealand](https://www.publish.csiro.au/sr/SR00018) and [Australia](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guangdi_Li3/publication/262957067_Soil_carbon_dynamics_under_different_cropping_and_pasture_management_in_temperate_Australia_Results_of_three_long-term_experiments/links/574a1b1608ae2e0dd30188bf/Soil-carbon-dynamics-under-different-cropping-and-pasture-management-in-temperate-Australia-Results-of-three-long-term-experiments.pdf)\).
1.8.8.4.1.6. Pro: Improving soil degradation can lead to [more nutritious](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/) crops.
1.8.8.4.1.6.1. Pro: Growing such large amount of crops for vegans would [deplete the soil](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/), so we would need more chemical fertilisers for that.
1.8.8.4.1.6.1.1. Pro: [Deforestation](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/) to grow crops will just increase as well, increasing the risk of soil depletion, and thus increasing the need for use of chemicals too.
1.8.8.4.1.7. Pro: Improving soil quality can [improve crop yields](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/?cid=nrcs142p2_054028) as well, as soil erosion costs the world around [$400 billion per year](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/?cid=nrcs142p2_054028) in losses.
1.8.8.4.1.8. Pro: -> See 1.4.10.2.1.
1.8.8.4.1.9. Con: Compost provides soil with chemicals that it needs, whereas manure adds in ones that harm it.
1.8.8.4.1.9.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.2.5.2.
1.8.8.4.1.9.2. Pro: [Biocyclic humus soil](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/12/were-humus-sapiens-the-farmers-who-shun-animal-manure#img-3) \(i.e. compost given [years](http://www.biocyclic-vegan.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/EFFECT-OF-BIOCYCLIC-HUMUS-SOIL-ON-YIELD-AND-QUALITY-PARAMETERS-OF-SWEET-POTATO.pdf) to form\) actually improves the soil more by containing hormones that help with root development with time.
1.8.8.4.1.9.2.1. Pro: Biocyclic humus also holds in nitrates more to prevent runoff \(which [pollutes rivers](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/12/were-humus-sapiens-the-farmers-who-shun-animal-manure#img-3)\) and the need for fertilizers.
1.8.8.4.1.9.2.2. Con: Biocyclic humus is also [expensive and is legally and economically fought by Big Ag](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/12/were-humus-sapiens-the-farmers-who-shun-animal-manure#img-3), so it's less likely to be used. So the soil issues may still remain even with the availability of this invention.
1.8.8.4.2. Pro: This benefits already large and unethical agrochemical companies like [Monsanto](https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=monsanto+unethical+issues).
1.8.8.4.3. Con: Meat requires more fertilizer \([50x](http://theconversation.com/how-the-great-phosphorus-shortage-could-leave-us-all-hungry-54432)\) than vegan foods. So vegan diets will actually use less chemical fertilizers than meat, making it the more sustainable choice.
1.8.8.4.3.1. Con: For most species, that may be the case; however, in pastoral-based livestock systems than cropping ones, less fertilizer is needed. The greater spacing in these fields reduces the yield, so less fertilizer is needed to replace the nutrients lost \(like phosphorus \(P\)\) from the agricultural product taken. For one hectare, [6,000-9,000kg](https://www.dairymoos.com/how-much-do-cows-weigh/) of biomass \(with P\) get removed from pastures \(as only about 2-3 animals grow there\), whereas for wheat, it's 25,000kg.
1.8.8.4.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.8.8.4.1.9.2.
1.8.8.4.4. Pro: Chemicals that are mined for fertilizer have a limited quantity \(such as [phosphorus](http://theconversation.com/how-the-great-phosphorus-shortage-could-leave-us-all-hungry-54432), which is highly unsustainable\), and relying on them will eventually lead to food shortages.
1.8.8.4.4.1. Con: [Manure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus) does not sustain civilizations anymore, so phosphorus rock from mining and chemical reactions is the main source of fertilizer now.
1.8.8.4.4.2. Pro: Manure provides a ['closed loop](http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/phosphorus.html)' of recycling chemicals, like phosphorus, in the ecosystem, whereas mining does not. Manure is sustainable, whereas mining is not.
1.8.8.4.5. Con: Technology, like [software](http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/phosphorus.html), can slow fertilizer use.
1.8.8.4.6. Con: There are alternatives to manure that would be sustainable/eco-friendly too.
1.8.8.4.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.8.8.4.1.5.1.
1.8.8.4.6.2. Pro: If people stop killing animals, due to going vegan, then wildlife could roam fields and provide some of the manure to counteract the manure shortage from farm animals.
1.8.8.4.6.2.1. Con: The number of wild animals roaming the field would be more random and thus harder to manage accurately to predict/control yields, which is a less efficient method than using manure.
1.8.8.4.6.2.1.1. Pro: There would be inefficiencies that would lead to more expenses/higher prices than usual due to a lack of prediction about them due to unpredictable yields.
1.8.8.4.6.2.2. Con: Not everyone would want to encourage wildlife near them \(due to potential unwanted conflicts with them\), so it would not be a great option for them.
1.8.8.4.6.2.3. Con: Even if manure is provided, the wild animals would destroy the crops \(because they're not domesticated and controlled like livestock to not do that\) to where it makes this option unviable as a substitute.
1.8.8.4.6.3. Con: Chemical fertilizers are not good for the environment, causing ['dead zones'](http://theconversation.com/how-the-great-phosphorus-shortage-could-leave-us-all-hungry-54432) in the ocean.
1.8.8.4.6.4. Pro: Instead of animals, [human waste](https://www.planetnatural.com/phosphorous-fertilizer/) could be a replacement.
1.8.8.4.6.4.1. Pro: Although this is not vegan \(humans are animals\), because this is really eco and sustainable, vegans should make an exception for this to help their crops grow.
1.8.8.4.7. Con: -> See 1.2.3.2.5.
1.8.8.5. Con: Since everyone becoming vegan is a step forward in a positive, eco direction, we can continue that momentum by working on this theme \(like food waste education, selling 'ugly' produce, growing food...\). However, without going vegan, these steps cannot be made. So even though veganism might not be sustainable, it is the foundation and start for our sustainability.
1.8.8.6. Pro: A vegan world would create new environmental harms.
1.8.8.6.1. Pro: In a vegan world, farmers may be economically motivated to maintain the same profit margins as they had with animal farming. Due to cost driving the replacement choices rather than environmental effects, vegan farms may be equally profitable but actually potentially worse for the environment than the current animal agriculture that takes place.
1.8.8.6.2. Pro: Animal agriculture had time to develop ecological practices like overlaying with the environment and being resource efficient. Vegan replacements won't have these advantages. Their placement will likely be abrupt, which could disrupt the current dynamics and create imbalances in the environment that aren't there now.
1.8.8.6.2.1. Pro: Animal agriculturalists will likely lack the time and transferable skills to properly think through a plan with the best vegan alternatives and management techniques, so they could quite likely damage the environment from these shortfalls.
1.8.8.6.2.1.1. Con: These farmers could be given support through sources like other farmers, the government, self-help \(like the internet and books\), etc. and a grace period to make the best decisions they can before delving in.
1.8.8.6.2.1.2. Pro: Farmers could make costly mistakes where they put something in and realize it's not a great match for the environment, where either the fix is unaffordable \(and so it continues to incur damage\) or does happen, but not without irreversible damage and less funding capabilities for future issues.
1.8.8.6.2.2. Pro: Increasing efficiency in animal production methods would be a better option to introducing something new, like veganism, that may potentially add new environmental to what already exists instead of just working on what's currently there.
1.8.8.6.3. Pro: Due to a lack of knowledge and time in figuring out what works and doesn't, vegan replacements added in could be less compatible with the native environment than livestock that is already known to work. This could be worse for the ecosystem than now, which is why it'll be better to leave the agricultural processes as-is.
1.8.8.6.3.1. Pro: The replacements for animal products may have a different symbiosis with the environment that could be more destructive to it if not planned out properly.
1.8.8.6.3.2. Con: In many situations, pasture animals do not coexist symbiotically with the natural ecosystem. Instead they damage the biodiversity.
1.8.8.6.3.2.1. Pro: In order to create pastures for grazing, the natural environment is [destroyed](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Land-cover-in-New-Zealand-from-pre-human-Maori-settlement-c-800-years-ago-left_fig2_235725288). This is not co-existing with a natural environment.
1.8.8.6.3.2.2. Pro: Pasture grazing destroys [native](https://www.dairynz.co.nz/feed/pasture-management/growing-pasture/alternative-pasture-species/) plant species.
1.8.8.6.4. Con: Since animals require extra energy to raise, removing a layer of animals from the food chain would cause a significant efficiency gain and would naturally reduce environmental harm.
1.8.9. Pro: Vegan lifestyles add beauty to the environment.
1.8.9.1. Con: Beauty is subjective, some people see beauty in destruction.
1.8.9.2. Pro: Plants that are grown add colors that people make wallpapers out of and are a point of pride for an area: such as the [lavender fields of the French Provence](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqaNZRauoRU/UeoNq_K9jFI/AAAAAAAABVM/LqTxNcd18x4/s1600/Lavender+fields+Provence+-+France+%284%29.jpg).
1.8.9.2.1. Pro: Much easier than creating wallpaper featuring a [factory farm](https://www.naturalblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/factory-farms.jpg).
1.8.9.3. Con: Deforestation for growing crops is not a pretty sight.
1.8.10. Pro: [Factory farming](http://visionlaunch.com/factory-farming-pros-and-cons/) is unsustainable, which is bad for the environment.
1.8.10.1. Con: Not all meat products are sourced from factory farms, so the ethicality of factory farming is irrelevant to the question of a moral imperative for veganism.
1.8.10.2. Con: Cultured meat is less resource intensive so might become cheaper than natural meat.
1.8.10.2.1. Pro: Lab-grown meat also has a massively reduced environmental impact due to not needing to expend energy and water to grow an entire living animal.
1.8.10.2.1.1. Pro: [Cultured meat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat) is just as environmentally sustainable as a vertical farm \(like [808 factory](https://www.808factory.jp) in [Recipes From the Future](https://www.netflix.com/title/80117748?source=35)\) for factory farming practices, even though it involves animals.
1.8.10.3. Con: -> See 1.8.10.2.1.1.
1.8.10.4. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.8.
1.8.10.5. Pro: -> See 1.4.14.8.
1.8.11. Con: If people become vegan for environmental reasons, then they may become complacent about tackling other pressing environmental concerns.
1.8.11.1. Con: This is merely speculation. There is just as much reason to think that self-improvement of any kind will not be accompanied by complacency.
1.8.11.2. Con: This is a [composition fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition). Saying that "veganism has environmental advantages" does not mean that this is all there is to it, and does not mean that other environmental concerns should be blindly accepted without reasoning.
1.8.11.3. Con: There is little reason to believe that a person choosing veganism for moral reasons such as limiting of suffering would not extend that knowledge to other systems that cause suffering like excessive consumption that harms the environment and contributes to global warming.
1.8.11.4. Pro: Selfishness, especially towards materialism and consumerism truly tarnishes the environment. Vegans may engage in other behaviours that are more harmful to the environment than any benefit they create, as they're being justified through the psychological phenomenon known as [moral self-licensing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing).
1.8.11.4.1. Pro: Other behaviors \(such as travel\) emit more than veganism, so priorities should be to prioritize these detrimental behaviors over diet. This change would lead to a greater environmental benefit than just everyone going vegan.
1.8.11.4.1.1. Con: That changing A has more benefits than changing B is not an argument for why B should not be changed. It may well be the case that both A and B should be changed.
1.8.11.4.1.2. Con: Livestock produce 14.5% off all CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses \([Gerber et al, 2013](http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf)\), while all transportation produces 14% of all CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses \([epa.gov](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data)\). Therefore, becoming vegan is just as effective as never travelling or any goods that you may use.
1.8.11.4.1.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.8.5.2.3.
1.8.11.4.1.3. Con: Greenhouse gas emissions are not the only environmental impact from the animal industries. Producing meat and dairy also requires much more water and land use compared to simply producing crops. All in all, a [huge recent study](https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth) found that the single best way to reduce one's environmental impact is to go vegan.
1.8.11.4.1.4. Pro: One of these options is to prioritize educating people about eco-traveling more than veganism, as it creates more environmental damage
1.8.11.4.1.5. Pro: [Travel](https://www.popsci.com/g00/3_c-6bbb.utux78hn.htr_/c-6RTWJUMJZX77x24myyux78x3ax2fx2fbbb.utux78hn.htrx2fx78nyjx78x2futux78hn.htrx2fknqjx78x2fx78ydqjx78x2f100_6c_x2fuzgqnhx2fnrfljx78x2f7562x2f52x2fhqnrfyj-hmfslj-htsywngzynts_6.oulx3fnytpx3dwTvq4BNnx26khx3d05x2c05x26n65h.rfwpx3dnrflj_$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$) creates more greenhouse gases than the vegan diet prevents, which could increase when people change their behaviors to go vegan.
1.8.11.4.2. Con: Since being vegan is often the result of a general interest in protecting the environment and sentient life-forms from unnecessary harm, vegan lifestyle is often accompanied by other lifestyle decisions that aim to reduce harm done to the environment. Vegans are thus more likely to show a broad spectrum of behaviour that aims to protect the environment.
1.8.11.4.2.1. Pro: Being vegan creates a guideline on how to be eco. Thus, if anything is worse, then people are more likely to recognize and do something about it \(like raise awareness\).
1.8.11.4.3. Con: Just because vegans "may" engage in other destructive activities does not mean they necessarily will. It certainly does not mean people should not go vegan, since some might perfectly fine transition without falling into moral self-licensing.
1.8.11.4.3.1. Pro: Most likely when people go vegan, they will not engage in moral self-licensing, because humans are creatures of habit will stick to the same routine they have except for one change.
1.8.11.4.3.2. Con: The major life change from the vegan lifestyle may trigger other life-changing behaviors as well, some of which may be moral self-licensing.
1.8.11.4.4. Con: People may engage as much in these behaviors anyway if they are not vegan. If they are vegan, they are providing an overall greater benefit, even when engaging in these activities.
1.8.11.4.5. Con: When everyone goes vegan, then new laws may come about to discourage people from engaging in worse activities to prevent climate change from affecting their region \(like a country\) anyway. Thus, this should not be a worry.
1.8.11.4.6. Con: -> See 1.2.3.4.7.
1.8.11.5. Pro: Global over-population is a real problem: people should be allowed to choose a diet that shortens their lifespan.
1.8.11.5.1. Con: [The threat of overpopulation is greatly overstated.](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/ExplodingPopulationMyths.pdf)
1.8.11.5.2. Con: There are better and more effective ways to reduce world population than by shortening their life, for example through widespread availability of family planning, spreading awareness on the causes and effects of overpopulation, providing easier access to birth control devices and implementing social norms to educate the public.
1.8.11.5.3. Con: Many people do not realise that by eating a diet of animal products they are more likely to contract diseases / risk early death as a result.  Since assisted death is often illegal and suicide is always discouraged the argument to “let people choose to live unhealthily and die sooner” seems weak. You would also have to change the ‘official’ guidance on nutrition to ensure people understand the health risks associated with consuming animal products.
1.8.11.5.4. Con: The cost to health services would be too great - they are already struggling with funding and lack of resources - unless you refused treatment to anyone not following a vegan diet
1.8.11.5.5. Pro: Shorter lifespans in an age of explosive and ever-increasing population growth with people living longer is a really detrimental situation with an inconclusive outcome as to who perishes. At least with shorter lifespans, the population remains stable and we know the outcome of humanity, due to predictability of shorter lifespans.
1.8.11.5.6. Pro: Allowing for shorter lifespans allows for control over the fate of humanity, instead of being dictated and ruled by nature.
1.8.11.5.7. Pro: With shorter lifespans, the case of "a shorter life is better than no life at all" comes into play. With short lifespans, everyone gets a chance to live, even though it is short. If everyone lives longer, especially on an animal-based diet, then future generations much shorter, if any life at all than if people die at a predictable lifespan and rate.
1.8.11.6. Pro: Consuming the nutrient level for a typical body type on a vegan diet is better environmentally than one that doesn't account consumption levels.
1.8.12. Con: The natural ecosystem from which we originally acquired these animals no longer exists as we have used it for farmland and urban development. To release these animals would cause devastation to whatever ecological niche they ended up in- or would lead to their extinction.
1.8.12.1. Con: The said animals can be given their own protected environments to live in which will not cause any devastation or lead to their extinction.
1.8.12.2. Con: There are numerous sorts of [feral](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral) animals \(wild animals that descended from domesticated animals\). Thus, domesticated animals can, in some cases, return to live in the wild without ecological devastation or extinction.
1.8.12.3. Con: The transition to veganism would be exceedingly unlikely to take place immediately, there would be no mass-release of animals but a phasing out.
1.8.12.4. Pro: Removing humans from a strong predatory position would disrupt the current ecosystem. The weaker species would become overpopulated, unable to care for their volume and potentially spread disease to land used for plant growth.
1.8.12.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.5.6.9.1.
1.8.12.4.2. Con: -> See 1.8.5.9.3.
1.8.12.4.3. Con: If the overpopulation becomes an issue \(pushing a species to extinction\), then humans could find vegan methods to manage wildlife populations.
1.8.12.4.3.1. Pro: One method to cull is relocating a species \(checked for potential issues\). The benefits are two-fold: 1\) the population decreases in the original location and 2\) the population can survive and thrive in the new place
1.8.12.4.4. Con: [Natural selection](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling2.htm) will correct for species' overpopulation eventually.
1.8.12.4.4.1. Con: Natural selection does not guarantee an outcome that is favorable for native species, leading to extinction of many species if no human intervention is made.
1.8.12.4.4.2. Pro: Humans for the most part removed the top predator from ecosystems \(such as [killing sharks for soup](http://www.stopsharkfinning.net/shark-fin-soup-whats-the-scoop/)\). Once humans become vegan, the top predators \(that are not extinct\) will probably come back and replace humans' top position \(as we have done with them\), as there could only be one predator present in an ecosystem at one time.
1.8.12.4.4.2.1. Con: Where the top predators are extinct, ecosystem collapse will continue.
1.8.12.4.4.2.1.1. Con: Substitute predators could be introduced to replace the original predators.
1.8.12.4.5. Pro: This is similar to the effect caused by the decrease in wolf numbers \(due to [human activity](https://animals.mom.me/wolves-affect-farmers-7538.html)\) [increased the deer population](http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20081023/SPORTS/810230378).
1.8.12.4.5.1. Con: -> See 1.8.12.4.4.2.
1.8.12.4.6. Con: Humans being the strongest predator in the ecosystem, in reality, cause, rather than prevent, damage to it that this discussion needed to be created in the first place. So removing them would lead to less disruption and imbalance \(like overpopulation of weaker species\), not more.
1.8.12.4.6.1. Pro: Most of the human-style culling \(removing a predator that is a threat to humans through hunting\) causes the exact problems that top predators supposedly prevent.
1.8.12.4.6.1.1. Pro: Humans removing a top predator \(like [sharks](https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/sharks-how-a-cull-could-ruin-an-ecosystem)\) disrupts the ecosystem.
1.8.12.4.6.1.2. Pro: Removing the top predators prevents those animals from keeping other species populations in check. Then those species get overpopulated anyway \(such as [sea urchin populations due to overfishing](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110114164516.htm)\).
1.8.12.4.6.1.2.1. Pro: These overpopulated species [wreak havoc](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110114164516.htm) on the ecosystem.
1.8.12.4.6.1.3. Pro: Hunting is generally not a good mechanism for regulating animal populations. In some cases it causes [species extinctions](https://www.britannica.com/list/6-animals-we-ate-into-extinction).
1.8.12.4.6.1.3.1. Con: Are there any examples of hunting to extinction from within the last century? We have learned a bit since then and understand about sustainable yields.
1.8.12.4.6.2. Pro: Humans artificially created domestic breeds for their purpose only \(not for the environment\). If humans lost their top predatory position, domestic species would cease to exist eventually \(through natural selection\). Although this transition is a disruption to the ecosystem, it is a positive and necessary action to make the environment better than its current condition.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1. Pro: Most of the meat eaten is not from hunting, but from industrial farming. Industrial farming is now disrupting the ecosystem.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.8.10.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.2. Pro: Farming is not an example of normal predation, but rather mutualism, as farm animals live longer and can breed more successfully than in the wild to where it causes issues for the environment.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.2.1. Pro: The top predator is always present in the animal kingdom, in accordance with the ecosystem. Humans have built systems outside of ecosystem, so outside of natural predators.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.2.2. Pro: While referring to predators in nature \(e.g. a lion or a wolf\) this claim "might" have its sense. When this claim is referring to humans as the "predator" then it doesn't make sense. There is no "selective predator role" in intensive animal farming \(e.g. chickens or pigs\). Every "product" is produced, genetically selected, and killed to be eventually sold on the supermarket shelves.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.2.3. Pro: This is true when the only predator is homo sapiens. A wild herd is not comparable to an intentionally bred one, as most habitats have multiple natural predators.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.2.3.1. Pro: A farmer is a predator that both breeds and kills you, which is not comparable to a predator killing already existing animals in the wild for food, for its survival.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.2.3.2. Con: For some animals, such as [deer in the UK](http://www.countryfile.com/explore-countryside/wildlife/deer-culling-britain-facts-and-statistics), humans do act as the top predator and are needed to control numbers.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.2.3.3. Pro: Farming is not normal predatory behaviour because it exceeds and replaces natural predator activity.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.2.4. Pro: Most land animals killed for meat consumption are raised specifically for that purpose. Livestock farming does not help regulate animal population.
1.8.12.4.6.2.1.2.4.1. Con: Arguments against livestock farming do not make arguments for blanket veganism.
1.8.12.4.6.3. Pro: It's the human desire for animal agriculture that [introduces](https://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/dangerous-hunt-stalking-wild-rainforest-cattle-hawaii/) non-native animal species to the wild to [overpopulate](https://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/dangerous-hunt-stalking-wild-rainforest-cattle-hawaii/) it. If everyone goes vegan, this desire goes away, along with the potential for invasiveness that comes with it too.
1.8.12.4.6.4. Pro: Humans do not make good top predators, as they mainly destroy environments more than maintain them. We may even not be meant for this position we put ourselves into \(as we'd be prey were it not for our minds powering creative thinking\). So we should go vegan to artificially place ourselves where we really belong in the ecosystem to restore its balance to where it should be again.
1.8.12.4.6.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.8.12.4.4.2.
1.8.12.4.7. Con: We eat the meat of farmed animals, not wild animals. So if we stop eating meat and stop animal farming, it won't affect wildlife because we do not take from their population to begin with.
1.8.12.4.7.1. Pro: Except for rare and highly-regulated hunting and eating roadkill for food, people are not the top of wildlife's food chain.
1.8.12.4.7.2. Con: If the [30%](https://greenerideal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/vegan-environment.jpg) of land that goes to farm animals gets returned to wildlife, they might have a chance of overtaking us. Eating farm animals decreases the risk of humans getting removed from its top predatory position.
1.8.12.4.7.2.1. Con: Given the technological superiority of humans, there is no chance they will be overrun by another species.
1.8.12.4.8. Pro: The remaining livestock on farms if everyone became vegan right now would pose a serious issue. The reproduction of the herd wouldn't stop and the excess of animals would be very harmful to nature if they are released into the wild.
1.8.12.4.8.1. Pro: Livestock populations could reach their projected [100 billion](https://youtu.be/7gXq1ml6B1E?t=1m16s) mark even without human intervention, which will cause difficulties in managing them.
1.8.12.4.8.1.1. Con: In nature, livestock's populations will be at the whim of natural selection. This will control any overpopulation issues.
1.8.12.4.8.1.1.1. Pro: Grazing animals are selectively bred and maintained by humans. Without that intervention, their [chances of survival](https://aeon.co/ideas/so-youre-too-ethical-to-eat-meat-but-should-cows-go-extinct) are slim.
1.8.12.4.8.1.2. Con: -> See 1.4.4.4.1.4.1.
1.8.12.4.8.2. Pro: Some livestock cannot be released into the wild. For example, large numbers of feral pigs have threatened [historical sites](https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/06/14/rooting-history-feral-swine-damage-archaeological-sites) in Florida.
1.8.12.4.8.2.1. Con: Some livestock could be released into the wild. This could actually be a positive \(like restoring [wild horse populations](https://rtfitchauthor.com/2009/10/03/1216/)\) rather than a negative.
1.8.12.4.8.3. Con: Current livestock would not be killed and instead live [longer](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/33/13/943313e0f11805e1cbc4cecacfc1ed10.jpg) and more fruitful lives.
1.8.12.4.8.3.1. Con: -> See 1.8.12.4.8.1.1.1.
1.8.12.4.8.4. Con: The lives of livestock would be threatened, as [their food source would go towards humans to live](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat). This will negatively impact the reproduction of herds.
1.8.12.4.8.4.1. Pro: Adding to this, since more people will thrive in this transition, the surplus could lead to more people with jobs of controlling the remaining herds.
1.8.12.4.8.5. Con: The transition to a vegan planet might not happen overnight, which prevents these issues from arising.
1.8.12.4.8.5.1. Con: Even in small numbers, an animal like a pig that doesn't produce any product beneficial to humans \(or make a good pet\) will have difficulty surviving.
1.8.12.4.8.5.1.1. Pro: In Texas, wild pigs were not prevalent until [1980ish](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/).  Considering the idea of wild is simply an escaped domestic pig, the numbers have grown so large that the pigs cause problems for the Texans- eating the crops, destroying property.  Pigs populate quickly even in nature.
1.8.12.4.8.5.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.8.12.4.8.2.
1.8.12.4.8.5.1.3. Pro: Wild pigs are destructive, costing the U.S. an estimated [$1.5 billion](http://blogs.plos.org/ecology/2017/02/01/invasive-wild-pigs-leave-a-swath-of-destruction-across-u-s-and-they-keep-spreading/) each year in damages and control costs.
1.8.12.4.8.5.1.4. Pro: In 2014, reports showed the USDA is spending [$20 million](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-wild-pigs-ravaging-the-u-s-be-stopped/) to solve a pig problem that has spread to 39 states and counting.
1.8.12.4.8.5.2. Pro: Even though reproduction would not stop, it would slow down dramatically \(since human intervention artificially inflates populations: through artificial breeding\).
1.8.12.4.8.5.3. Pro: Government stipends towards meat can be shifted to funding sanctuaries for remaining livestock, so they can live out the rest of their lives peacefully and under surveillance to prevent them from harming nature.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.1. Pro: In combination with stopping further breeding of livestock, sanctuaries will prevent livestock from harming nature while maintaining peaceful lives.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.2. Pro: The stipends/subsidies could the temporarily pay for farmland until the livestock live out their lives completely instead of being released into nature.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.2.1. Con: With the cost of livestock in farms in the USA at [$176 billion](https://agriplasticscommunity.com/rise-in-costs-of-agricultural-production-in-the-united-states/) and subsidies at [$20 billion](https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies), these subsidies alone would not be enough to maintain them financially.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.2.1.1. Con: Since the subsidies are only temporary, as the average lifespan of livestock is at most [20 years](https://www.four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animals/life-expectancy), this worry is only temporary.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.2.1.2. Pro: The US is already thinking of having almost a potential [$1 trillion deficit](https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789) next year. Adding another $176 billion would send it over $1 trillion, when we really should be finding ways to lower it.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.2.1.3. Con: -> See 1.2.3.8.14.1.1.1.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.2.2. Con: When animals live out their lives instead, animal farms won't be able generate an [income](https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17845) that the subsidies potentially come from. So it'll have to come from other sources, causing these farmers to be dependent on others to survive, which they might be against.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.2.3. Con: Just like [farm bills](https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162), these subsidies may be misallocated in an unfair way \(benefiting large farms at the expense of small ones, etc.\).
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.3. Con: If somehow the funds become corrupted in some way \(mishandled, dwindling amounts, etc.\), there is a likely potential that this venture would not work and animals may get released by the caregivers when they run out of funds.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.4. Con: For governments with tight budgets, this could force them to choose between ensuring adequate nutrition for all citizens under veganism and ensuring the best possible care for 'retired' livestock.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.4.1. Con: If the funding for sanctuaries are not part of and don't take away from the funding towards providing nutrition for citizens, then this conflict would not happen.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.4.2. Con: Veganism [provides more affordable food for citizens](https://www.kialo.com/a-balanced-vegan-diet-is-cheaper-than-a-balanced-diet-that-includes-meat-2762.1342?path=2762.0~2762.1-2762.407-2762.1342) to where both [hunger is eradicated](https://www.kialo.com/veganism-as-a-worldwide-behavioral-public-health-intervention-strategy-improves-communitypopulation-health-outcomes-2762.3176?active=_2762.1690&action=locations) and still have enough of a [cost savings](http://www.investorwords.com/16295/cost_saving.html) to fund sanctuaries without going over budget. So governments don't have to choose, but [have it both ways](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+it+both+ways) instead.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.4.3. Pro: Taking care of livestock could be expensive for the government and would likely take away [subsidies towards vegan foods](https://www.kialo.com/if-everyone-eats-vegan-then-the-subsidies-from-meat-could-go-into-vegan-products-to-make-them-cheaper-2762.1358?path=2762.0~2762.1-2762.407_2762.2385_2762.2358-2762.1358) that would make them cheaper, so people would not able to afford vegan food as much as they could.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.4.3.1. Con: -> See 1.5.9.5.2.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.4.4. Pro: Governments are unlikely to choose animal sanctuaries over feeding their people, as this would be politically unpopular.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.4.5. Pro: The government's main focus is on people and these stipends take away from their livelihood if the budget doesn't allow for both.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.4.6. Con: This could happen if the government doesn't account for the added expense in their budget. However, if they do account for it, then the funding would likely not have to come out of feeding people.
1.8.12.4.8.5.3.5. Con: Truly allowing animals to live out their lives peacefully would involve maintaining the '[5 freedoms](http://spcabluetick.org.nz/About-us/The-Five-Freedoms)', one of which is the freedom to express natural behaviors \(which would include breeding\). Preventing breeding is not sustainable or humane. Therefore letting animals live out their lives would not work.
1.8.12.4.8.5.4. Pro: Over time, the livestock will decline \(farmers will just sell what they have and not grow more\) until a lack of supply and demand cause them to cease existence. Thus, no livestock would be left to place into the wild and would not be an issue.
1.8.12.4.8.5.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.4.1.4.1.
1.8.12.4.8.5.5. Pro: Overpopulation would not be an issue if we just consume all livestock before the world transitions to veganism.
1.8.12.4.8.5.5.1. Pro: People would naturally want to have their 'last taste' of their favourite meat dishes before transitioning to veganism. This would likely create a surge in demand and consumption to facilitate this transition.
1.8.12.4.8.5.5.2. Pro: If breeding was stopped at staggered intervals, then a controlled transition would be easily achieved by slowly retiring out adult animals and not replacing consumed animals/ offspring.
1.8.12.4.8.5.6. Pro: If animals get released into the wild, then there are vegan methods to naturalize them, like transferring them back to where their species originate from.
1.8.12.4.8.6. Con: If society decides to leave \(and [manage](https://www.kialo.com/the-stipendssubsidies-could-the-temporarily-pay-for-farmland-until-the-livestock-live-out-their-lives-completely-instead-2762.2592?path=2762.0~2762.1-2762.3429_2762.503_2762.1483_2762.408-2762.2129_2762.2592)\) livestock where they currently are when we go vegan instead of releasing them into the wild, invasiveness won't be an issue.
1.8.12.4.8.6.1. Pro: Livestock already exist in nature \(like grazing cattle\). Farmers will just need to keep managing the population \(like preventing overgrazing\) to not impact the ecosystem.
1.8.12.4.8.6.2. Con: -> See 1.8.12.4.8.5.3.5.
1.8.12.4.8.7. Con: We could just let animals roam cities freely instead, as is done in [India](http://mayapurvoice.com/svagatam/cows-allowed-roam-indian-roads/), instead of releasing them into the wild.
1.8.12.4.8.7.1. Con: India has major issues with animals freely roaming, such as [collisions](https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sharp-rise-in-cattle-run-over-by-trains-in-north-india/story-cnUipzboGRoU27V6NyUWRO.html) with them. Releasing them into the wild would help them get used to natural habitats and keep them away from humans/the urban environment that they're not meant for.
1.8.13. Con: Transitioning to a vegan diet may be worse for the environment than just keeping their original diet, as that would involve [switching to higher resource-intensive meats or vegetarian products](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284712516_Energy_use_blue_water_footprint_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions_for_current_food_consumption_patterns_and_dietary_recommendations_in_the_US) during that time.
1.8.13.1. Pro: Veganism for the planet will be [damaging](https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/advantages-disadvantages-examples-monoculture.php) to the environment due to monoculture farming needed to produce the food.
1.8.13.1.1. Con: Crop rotation can and [should be used](https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/278666/1-s2.0-S1573521401X80196/1-s2.0-S1573521401800269/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEHUaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIGMOUeal6JO3pta%2B6DLi00pVSBP9iC3WauSC7WVWqf%2FwAiEAlglVfGy8wh%2Ffa25wbpfDqJdO7HhdA87She3dEg%2BoILUqtAMIXRADGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4NjUiDAqRvNm18WF5haz9zyqRA2qRfTQbvwjioLhqu1J2nzTWExagqIjxKbcs6VFA46EjtWn%2BQjTBubey3oN5L4rXQ3Wd8Bje9yp4X2GAjeT%2FH2wVqOz6VlSLXFxWXE3hCijS7TjL5niYv0fCzkEyFz4up7RYhUp%2BPDISherJZ9KS4UXX0vCmEvOaVjTUhxOhF4qH%2F6DeALCG9IXr5R3d0yxnuezTzj7b1O2kAvIP315UC%2BREsOiWCzVMnQb4VLrLEyYlrzIp%2Bf4rGUuCEs7%2B0M%2BwMgtI2PKdU2rHOiVptg7BKIm0jFtXYyZv14JMzGE7Uj%2B5qG1%2BXRzjXjk9u9KgoxfW68py%2BqkUo3wMKv%2FD5ZFNwNakRRdfbRIqy%2Fhbvleba6aYUjivH6%2BcOfqWzXmPs4SFQ9mueAvpbhYx4Xrwq56F0C3RsxoLr0QRAidDrP2vdQp1%2F8TBRsVzwYJliAyLcajLqFBqC0v24C5UTeyp5wpdPeOFMfK7yZR4BkcH%2FJD2JefneGIR3RxlMndsRxJ9QooJdLNlQ6T5vaCR8bmBKhCQT1yZMJPTyoAGOusBOYbi9V%2F8KAD0EZiuNva%2BZjyyxGZWvqpUdDjD0iL%2FSajV8keoob7tFYvh0TJyHh6rZE5S0yMMSkrX8iT08X5LCP3cKQO%2Bc85zefPYJeBNbRdFjeNggRO%2F6mT705I15v6gsAVON4kvCWxKcRUh3g5rorbrLjSiDk%2FgT7c6KHrgjmVW3ExKa8KrhMfnrUqzmb2JPpwNtOtXYU05QKYqv8pZxNjI6BjkApPoQsxT75wVL5%2Bl4DqaHzH%2BgTV8yRZj44XD%2F3oOdLVRACyb%2BYvUbyBrhZG%2Fi5%2BwCq3pYK9eE5%2Fs92mb6ZDYR8u257yVgQ%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20210128T132820Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYTUKRC4HK%2F20210128%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=65814e3356dd99ec139594aa50046211ab3e11d654454211cc4a3936c85afff2&hash=91ae153bb22d4fbb19f2847d7c8789f1fc4a324d37f5caa40929163c10b21a98&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1573521401800269&tid=spdf-db35a5ba-2c4a-4ce6-a604-60c70f441119&sid=1db0e8e241cbd44c0d2bc22097520882c4cegxrqa&type=client), and [has been used for centuries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation).
1.8.13.2. Con: A [systematic review](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165797) found that a vegan diet tended to be better for the environment \(tables 2, 3, and 4\). The majority of evidence points to a vegan diet being good for the environment.
1.8.13.2.1. Con: -> See 1.6.11.1.3.3.4.1.
1.8.13.3. Pro: -> See 1.8.8.4.1.
1.8.13.4. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.1.1.
1.8.13.5. Con: -> See 1.6.11.1.2.9.4.1.1.
1.8.13.6. Pro: The environmental benefits of vegans and LO-vegetarians are roughly equal \([pp. 5-6](https://iris.unito.it/retrieve/handle/2318/1645474/353092/Rosi_et_al-2017-Scientific_Reports.pdf)\), with the greatest impact being made solely by cutting out meat from one’s diet. Veganism does not come with any significant environmental benefits that justify the effort needed for this endeavour.
1.8.13.6.1. Con: It nevertheless follows that there are significant environmental benefits to eliminating meat from one's diet, which is a core part of veganism.